Add 7m9c to HL to improve betting and surrender

[seriousplayer]

I wouidl ike to double check the top 6 HL w 7m9c indices that I am using.

The two counts I am considering in my top 6 are HL + 2*(7m9c) and HL + 3*(7m9c).

psrc1 = HL + 2*(7m9c) has tag values of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0 , -2, -1, -1 for ranks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively.

psrc2 = HL + 3*(7m9c) has tag values of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 0 , -3, -1, -1 for ranks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively.

It seem like you still don't understand card counting. How many time did we say "counting the 9s as negative will have a harmful effect on insurance"? If I were you I would drop the 9s from the system completely, and make it 0.

For HL + 2*(7m9c) has tag values of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0 , -2, -1, -1 PE = .469, BC = .85 and IC = .566
HL + 3*(7m9c) has tag values of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 0 , -3, -1, -1 PE = .386, BC = .733 and IC = .454

Did you bother to do the calculations for the PE, BC and IC before you decide which tag values to use?

[bjanalyst]

It seem like you still don't understand card counting. How many time did we say "counting the 9s as negative will have a harmful effect on insurance"? If I were you I would drop the 9s from the system completely, and make it 0.

For HL + 2*(7m9c) has tag values of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0 , -2, -1, -1 PE = .469, BC = .85 and IC = .566
HL + 3*(7m9c) has tag values of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 0 , -3, -1, -1 PE = .386, BC = .733 and IC = .454

Did you bother to do the calculations for the PE, BC and IC before you decide which tag values to use?

You do not understand the system.

You are using the stand-alone HL 90% of the time so there is no pollution with the negative tag value of the 9 because 90% of the time you are using the HL which counts the 9 as zero.

You are keeping a side count of 7m9c. And you are using 7m9c for only two purposes.

1. Betting; instead of using HL for betting you are using brc = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c).

2. You are using 7m9c with the HL for ONLY SIX strategy changes which are surrender 8,8 v T DAS, hard 14 v 9, T, A, hard 13 v T and standing on hard 14 v T

3. EVERYTHING ELSES you are using the stand alone HL.

So you only use 7m9c with the HL when it helps the HL. Otherwise you use HL alone.

What I was asking was to check the indices that I came up with for the SIX strategy changes where 7m9c is used with the HL. I just want SIX indices checked.

So if someone has software that generates indices, I would like to check my indices for six strategy changes where the 7m9c is used as per my previous post.

What is important is the sim results. I want the correct indices for the SIX HL w 7m9c strategy changes to give Gronbog when he does his sims. Anything other than these top 6 plays ONLY THE HL Is used (the 7m9c is NOT used) and of course the HL indices are used.

If someone can check these six indices I calculated for HL w 7m9c shown in the previous post I would appreciate it.

[seriousplayer]

You do not understand the system.

You are using the stand-alone HL 90% of the time so there is no pollution with the negative tag value of the 9 because 90% of the time you are using the HL which counts the 9 as zero.

You are keeping a side count of 7m9c. And you are using 7m9c for only two purposes.

1. Betting; instead of using HL for betting you are using brc = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c).

Firstly, you are no longer counting the 7m9c as (1/2). You are doubling both 7s and 9s, in this case (2)*7m9c. In what literature did you read that say side counting the 7m9c would help you improve betting? Side counting the 7s would help with playing strategies more than betting.

2. You are using 7m9c with the HL for ONLY SIX strategy changes which are surrender 8,8 v T DAS, hard 14 v 9, T, A, hard 13 v T and standing on hard 14 v T

Side counting the 7s alone would help improve the 14 vs T plays but since you are incorporating the 9s, it might hurt the play. Side counting the 9s alone would improve the hard 14s, 15s and 16s playing decision. Why are you choosing the deviation for 13 vs T and NOT 15 vs 9, T, A? Doubting those 6 plays would increase SCORE significantly.

[bjanalyst]

Firstly, you are no longer counting the 7m9c as (1/2). You are doubling both 7s and 9s, in this case (2)*7m9c. In what literature did you read that say side counting the 7m9c would help you improve betting? Side counting the 7s would help with playing strategies more than betting.

Side counting the 7s alone would help improve the 14 vs T plays but since you are incorporating the 9s, it might hurt the play. Side counting the 9s alone would improve the hard 14s, 15s and 16s playing decision. Why are you choosing the deviation for 13 vs T and NOT 15 vs 9, T, A? Doubting those 6 plays would increase SCORE significantly.

7m9c does help with betting. And 7m9c helps mainly with the top 6 plays. You are not side counting 7s or 9s, your side count is the difference, 7m9c.

I think I figured out the corrected indices. I will attach a PDF with the correction and I will give what I believe is the corrected top 6 below. For some reason my Excel file did not seem to calculate some of these indices correctly.

Stand hard 14 v T if HL + 3*(7m9c) >= 12*dr
Surrender 8,8 v T DAS if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 2*dr
Surrender hard 14 v 9 if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 8*dr
Surrender hard 14 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 3*dr
Surrender hard 14 v A if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
Surrender hard 13 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 9*dr

Corrected HL w 7m9c indices.pdf

[seriousplayer]

7m9c does help with betting. And 7m9c helps mainly with the top 6 plays. You are not side counting 7s or 9s, your side count is the difference, 7m9c.

Citations needed. If you think that it is bad to side count 7s and 9s separately you have to think again. It could improve playing even more if you side count them separately. Don't believe me read "The Theory of Blackjack".

I think I figured out the corrected indices. I will attach a PDF with the correction and I will give what I believe is the corrected top 6 below. For some reason my Excel file did not seem to calculate some of these indices correctly.

Stand hard 14 v T if HL + 3*(7m9c) >= 12*dr
Surrender 8,8 v T DAS if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 2*dr
Surrender hard 14 v 9 if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 8*dr
Surrender hard 14 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 3*dr
Surrender hard 14 v A if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
Surrender hard 13 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 9*dr

Still don't understand why you decided to improve surrendering hard 13 and not hard 15?

[bjanalyst]

Citations needed. If you think that it is bad to side count 7s and 9s separately you have to think again. It could improve playing even more if you side count them separately. Don't believe me read "The Theory of Blackjack".

I think I figured out the corrected indices. I will attach a PDF with the correction and I will give what I believe is the corrected top 6 below. For some reason my Excel file did not seem to calculate some of these indices correctly.


Still don't understand why you decided to improve surrendering hard 13 and not hard 15?

Of course, if you kept a side count of 7s and 9s you get more information But that is keeping two side counts and also these side counts are not a simple plus/minus side count.

My goal was, for the players who want to keep the HL, to come up with the simplest side count possible to improve the HL. I believe 7m9c is the simplest side count. It is level one plus/minus count and counts only two ranks and also neither of those ranks are in the primacy HL count making it even easier to count and less confusion.

Unfortunately, the 7m9c does not help with hard 15 surrender decisions. Only hard 14 and 13 surrender decisions.

This can be seen in the logic in the following example:

Surrender hard 14 v A if psrc = HL + 2*(7m9c) ? 6*dr

If 7m9c is positive then more 7s than 9s came out of the shoe and so there is a deficiency of 7s and excess of 9s left in the shoe. So the more positive 7m9c is the more likely dealer has a 9 in the hole giving dealer an A9 for a total of 20 and the less likely for the dealer to have a 7 in the hole giving the dealer an A7 for a total of 18. Also the deficiency of 7s means it is less likely for player to pick up a 7 if the player hits his hard 14 for a perfect 21 and more likely for player to pick up one of the excess 9s and bust his hard 14 if player hits. Thus the larger 7m9c is the more advantageous it is for the player to surrender on his hard 14 v A than hit. This logic agrees with the formula. As 7m9c increases, psrc increases and eventually psrc exceeds 6*dr and player surrenders.

[seriousplayer]

Of course, if you kept a side count of 7s and 9s you get more information But that is keeping two side counts and also these side counts are not a simple plus/minus side count.

Well, it is better than your three component side count that you invented for KO. It is a shame that after side counting that many cards your system can't even perform close to the Gordon Count. If that is the case you might as well just keep separate side counts of 7s and 9s.

My goal was, for the players who want to keep the HL, to come up with the simplest side count possible to improve the HL. I believe 7m9c is the simplest side count. It is level one plus/minus count and counts only two ranks and also neither of those ranks are in the primacy HL count making it even easier to count and less confusion.

I disagree! Because some savvy Hi-lo players also side count the 7s. Side counting one card is more simple than side counting two cards. I don't think that your system would outperform Hi-lo with side count of 7s that much.

Unfortunately, the 7m9c does not help with hard 15 surrender decisions. Only hard 14 and 13 surrender decisions.

This can be seen in the logic in the following example:

Surrender hard 14 v A if psrc = HL + 2*(7m9c) ? 6*dr

If 7m9c is positive then more 7s than 9s came out of the shoe and so there is a deficiency of 7s and excess of 9s left in the shoe. So the more positive 7m9c is the more likely dealer has a 9 in the hole giving dealer an A9 for a total of 20 and the less likely for the dealer to have a 7 in the hole giving the dealer an A7 for a total of 18. Also the deficiency of 7s means it is less likely for player to pick up a 7 if the player hits his hard 14 for a perfect 21 and more likely for player to pick up one of the excess 9s and bust his hard 14 if player hits. Thus the larger 7m9c is the more advantageous it is for the player to surrender on his hard 14 v A than hit. This logic agrees with the formula. As 7m9c increases, psrc increases and eventually psrc exceeds 6*dr and player surrenders.

What good is it when it helps with only two plays? Your 7m9c is not as good as you think. You haven't address insurance. Side counting the 7s itself with Hi-lo would improve the IC to .81 but I am not sure about 7m9c.

[DSchles]

You haven't address insurance.

Yes he has. He has said over and over that, for insurance, he simply uses the primary Hi-Lo with no adjustments. So, that is a non-issue.

Don

[seriousplayer]

Yes he has. He has said over and over that, for insurance, he simply uses the primary Hi-Lo with no adjustments. So, that is a non-issue.

Don

Than I choose Hi-lo with side count of 7 over Hi-lo + 7m9c since Hi-lo with side count of 7 has an index for insurance deviation. Therefore, improves the IC. Also, bjanalyst mention that his intent was to attack the Lucky Ladies side bet with his count system, in other words Hi-lo + 7m9c, since he is using the primary Hi-lo with no adjustment wouldn't that be the same as just using the Hi-lo itself for Lucky Ladies?

There will be no improvement over Lucky Ladies than.