See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

# Thread: Varying player edges at each TC

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

## Varying player edges at each TC

I compared the player edge at each true count (Hi Lo vs Halves)

TC.....Hi Lo:.....Halves:
-1.5..-1.41%....-1.37%
-1..... -1.14%...-1.17%
-0.5...-0.91%...-0.91%
0.......-0.57%...-0.54%
+0.5..-0.19%...-0.19%
+1....+0.11%...-0.03% **
+1.5..+0.32%..+0.40%
+2.....+0.64%..+0.73%
+2.5..+0.93%..+0.76% **
+3.....+1.23%..+1.09% **

Game is 6D H17 das da2, 5 decks dealt

Rate/100H:
hi lo +\$113 with \$123 average bet
Halves +\$124 with \$121 average bet

Obviously halves is the better count, but...

Why are the halves edge% per TC worse (usually) than the hi lo numbers?

Does halves just outperform way more in the higher true counts? It looks like hi lo would be better when looking at edge % per TC

2. 1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Edge by TC isn't a meaningful comparison since the frequencies are different. See https://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage196.htm

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I wonder why the edge at TC of zero should be different (-0.57 versus -0.54). Negative index plays?

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Norm
Edge by TC isn't a meaningful comparison since the frequencies are different. See https://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage196.htm
Interesting. Norm, if Zen's +2 edge equals Hi Opt 2's edge at +9 (which it does) does that mean Zen is a more conservative count, if you will? That it's assigning more value to big cards removed, less to small cards removed, or neutral values to cards that increase edge when removed, or some combination of these?

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by RTR2021
Interesting. Norm, if Zen's +2 edge equals Hi Opt 2's edge at +9 (which it does) does that mean Zen is a more conservative count, if you will? That it's assigning more value to big cards removed, less to small cards removed, or neutral values to cards that increase edge when removed, or some combination of these?
This doesn't sound right to me. If a shoe was deficient 3 5's and 2 7's both counts would be the same. The cards that cause these counts to diverge are Aces and 6's. I would think they would run closer together as far as edge and True count.

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by UncleChoo
This doesn't sound right to me. If a shoe was deficient 3 5's and 2 7's both counts would be the same. The cards that cause these counts to diverge are Aces and 6's. I would think they would run closer together as far as edge and True count.
yeah, seems like there's something else at play. maybe it's in the deviations.

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Bluesman, how did you come up with these numbers.

They’re different mixes of hi vs lo cards at any true count, and depending how you did it, the numbers are subject to change. That being said, your win rates look like a 25 min 1-10 spread?, about right But light) results without surrender, and otherwise pretty good rules.

Last but not least, what is true 3 at hi lo, may be 2.5, 3, or 3.5 at halves, and the same sort of comments could be made for a mid shoe true 0. One of the things I like best about halves is it’s ability to identify MARGINAL strengths and MARGINAL weakness of the deck, where hi lo showed lesser or greater strength. It gives me confidence to play some of the schtick that I do.

My 6 year old grandson stayed the night at our house, and it is now time for breakfast.

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
-The newer versions of Zen use a different TC divisor.
-Zero TC does not mean zero RC.
-These numbers are taken at the start of the round, when you bet. The count changes before you play.

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Freightman
Bluesman, how did you come up with these numbers.
I just ran a sim of each and kept the optimal betting at whatever it said. Deviations are all the same plays, using roughly 50 of them. I was only looking at the edges in each count.

Still doesnt make sense how they are like this. The one that really gets me is true 1 count. Hi lo shows a decent edge, while halves shows a very slight loss...

Then halves is higher at true 1 and 2 but then lower at true 3.

(I ran half true counts)

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by blueman
I just ran a sim of each and kept the optimal betting at whatever it said. Deviations are all the same plays, using roughly 50 of them. I was only looking at the edges in each count.

Still doesnt make sense how they are like this. The one that really gets me is true 1 count. Hi lo shows a decent edge, while halves shows a very slight loss...

Then halves is higher at true 1 and 2 but then lower at true 3.

(I ran half true counts)
Your using half true counts was obvious. It is also my preference. Tell me your exact parameters and spread. Later today, I’ll run my typical rules, limit spread 1-10 (or your spread) for both halves and hi lo. I’ll then compare it to yours.

Note with my typical rules, the true 1 bucket for both full and half true counts and for both halves and hi lo should a modest profit. Now, half true counts limits results from true 1.0 to 1.49. Now, if you goofed and ran halves at half true counts and hi lo at full true, that will account for at least some of the difference. Interesting in any event.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•