See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 187

Thread: Add 7m9c to HL to improve betting and surrender

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Add 7m9c to HL to improve betting and surrender

    My goal was to increase the HL score the most with the simplest side count.

    Many players do not want to give up the HL so here is what I came up with. Add 7m9c = seven minus nine count as the side count to the HL when Late Surrender is offered.

    First I want to maximize betting the most. If you use brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) the HL betting correlation coefficient for S17, DAS, LS game increases from 96.5% to 98.1%.

    Second I wanted to increase the SCORE the most.

    A big impact on the SCORE would be obtained by increasing efficiency of Late Surrender on the SCORE since late surrender increases expectation and decreases risk.

    Adding 7m9c helps greatly with surrendering hard 14 v 9, T, A and hard 13 v T. These are important surrender decisions as the index is high so your maximum bet it out so the correct surrender decision are important for these plays.

    So here is how to use 7m9c with HL.

    1. brc = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) Use brc as you used these for betting.

    2. Use 7m9c for help with these decisions. Note the value of "k" in HL + k*(7m9c) is k = 2 in these cases. 7m9c helps a lot with these surrender decisions. dr = decks remaining.
    Surrender h14 v 9 if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
    Surrender h14 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 3*dr
    Surrender h14 v A if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
    Surrender h13 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 7*dr (-- fixed, I had repeated hard 14 v 9 by accident)

    3. Attached is a list of all changes with 7m9c but these four changes above and betting are the most important. You can use HL for everything else. So no need to learn anything new.

    HL w 7m9c (1).jpg
    HL w 7m9c (2).pdf
    HL w 7m9c (3).jpg
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 11-27-2019 at 12:56 PM.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    In your playing strategy, there is a typo. The fourth row is for Surrender 13 versus 10, I guess?

    Does "7 minus 9 count" mean you (in addition to HiLo, which ignores them) count each 7 as plus one and each 9 as minus one, as does the Silver Fox count (but only for betting and Surrender)?

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by PinkChip View Post
    In your playing strategy, there is a typo. The fourth row is for Surrender 13 versus 10, I guess?

    Does "7 minus 9 count" mean you (in addition to HiLo, which ignores them) count each 7 as plus one and each 9 as minus one, as does the Silver Fox count (but only for betting and Surrender)?
    So yes, there are several problems with the very beautiful, but perhaps flawed, OP's work. If this is simply 7 is +1 and 9 is -1, then yes, indeed, this is Silver Fox, which is known to UNDERPERFORM Hi-Lo. And the reason for that is that counting the 9 as a negative rather adversely affects the insurance decision, which is the most important one of all.

    Also, you will notice, despite the significant amount of analysis, NO SCOREs at all. So, BJAnalyst, please provide them, and then we will see which systems outperform which. (Hint: You're going to be disappointed.)

    Don

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by PinkChip View Post
    In your playing strategy, there is a typo. The fourth row is for Surrender 13 versus 10, I guess?

    Does "7 minus 9 count" mean you (in addition to HiLo, which ignores them) count each 7 as plus one and each 9 as minus one, as does the Silver Fox count (but only for betting and Surrender)?

    So Thanks for the catch. I wrote that very quickly.

    Look at the attached flies as they have the correct information.

    So the 4th row should be Surrender 13 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 7*dr

    dr = decks remaining.

    Of courst the HLL does not count the 7s or 9s but the 7m9c does. 7m9c means Seven minus Nine Count . So the 7s count as +1 and the 9s as -1 in 7m9c.

    I have included charts showing more strategy cahngess by including 7m9c with HL but the most important is for insuance and then surrendering hard 14 v 9, T, A and hard 13 v T which plays are made with large bets out and which the 7m9c increases th eefficinecy of sucy surrender plays greatly. Note that factor of 2 hitting th 7m9c before adding to the HL for theses plays.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    So yes, there are several problems with the very beautiful, but perhaps flawed, OP's work. If this is simply 7 is +1 and 9 is -1, then yes, indeed, this is Silver Fox, which is known to UNDERPERFORM Hi-Lo. And the reason for that is that counting the 9 as a negative rather adversely affects the insurance decision, which is the most important one of all.

    Also, you will notice, despite the significant amount of analysis, NO SCOREs at all. So, BJAnalyst, please provide them, and then we will see which systems outperform which. (Hint: You're going to be disappointed.)

    Don
    You get a entire series of counts by varying the value of "k" in HL + k*(7m9c). A normal count system gives a fixed tag value for each rank. By varying "k" the tag values can change For easch situation you choose the value of "k" that give the best count. If k = 0 then HL + k*(7m9c) is just the HL and most of the time "k" will be zero.

    But by making k = +(1/2) then you get brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) which is excellent for betting. You can see that in the brc the 7s are counted as +1/2 and the 9s as -(1/2) which is what is required for betting.

    psrc = playing strategy running count = HL + k*(7m9c). As you can see from that attached file there is a smorgasbord of psrc's depending on the value of "k" chosen. You choose the value of "k" that is best for each situation, that is, the value of give gives a psrc that is best.

    For example, surrendering hard 14 v 9, T, A and hard 13 v T the value of k = 2. This makes the 7s counts as +2 and the nines as -2.. This is excellent for these surrender situations. For example a large 7m9c means that more 7's than 9's came out of the shoe and so there is a deficiency of 7s and excess of 9s left in the shoe. So if you have a hard 14 v A for example the deficiency of 7s means it is less likely for you to hit your hard 14 with a 7 for a perfect 21. Also the excess of 9s means it is more likely that you hit your hard 14 with a 9 and bust. And the deficiency of 7s and excess of 9s also means that it is more likely for the dealer to have a 9 in the hole than a 7 in the hole giving that dealer an A9 for a twenty (I hate when that happens, especially when you take insurance so you lose your insurance bet and most likely your blackjack bet). This means that a large positive 7m9c means it is more beneficial to surrender hard 14 v A than hit. The formula is surrender hard 14 v A if psrc = HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr. So as 7m9c increases, psrc increases and eventually surpasses 6*dr and you surrender. Thus logic and the formula agree.

    So for each playing strategy situation, there is an optimal value of "k" to use in psrc = HL + k*(7m9c).

    Also you mentioned insurance. You choose k = 0 for insurance. Thus you are using just the HL for insurance. As I said, most of the time k = 0 so HL + k*(7m9c) is the HL.

    So there is no question that psrc = HL + k*(7m9c) will beat the HL as psrc is the HL if the HL is best (asn so k = 0 is chosen) and if not, if "k" has a value other than zero that improves the HL for a particular playing strategy decision then that value of "k" is used giving the derived count psrc = HL + k*(7m9c).

    So the question is, how will HL with 7m9c perform as compared to the HO2 w ASC.

    Remember, I am assuming that Late Surrender is offered. 7m9c helps greatly with Late Surrender, much better than HO2 w ASC does.

    And using brc = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) for betting you have the same betting efficiency as the HO2 w ASC.

    What I am looking for is to maximize the SCORE.

    So I was looking to maximize Late Surrender decisions, especially when your maximum bet is out. Using psrc = HL + 2*(7m9c) for surrendering hard 14 v 9, T, A and hard 13 v T gives excellent surrender decisions at just the right time when your maximum bet it out. So you are increasing expectation, and reducing risk with your maximum bet out so my prediction that SCORE should take off.

    This only applies if Late Surrender is offered. If no LS then HO2 w ASC will beat HL with 7m9c, but if LS is included, I think HL with 7m9c SCORE will come close to HO2 w ASC.

    Of course I cannot do simulations. Gronbog does simulations, If there is enough interest in this and if Gronbog wants to do simuations then he can email me and I can give him what he needs to do HL with 7m9c simulations. This one should be very easy to do as he can just use a HL sim program and makes a few changes for situations where 7m9c is used, that is "k" is non-zero, and leave the rest of the HL program untouched where k = 0.

    HL w 7m9c tag values.jpg
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 11-27-2019 at 01:17 PM.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Plaase see attached files as hey will futher cleariy using 7m9c with HL
    HL w 7m9c examples (1).jpgHL w 7m9c examples (2).jpgHL w 7m9c examples (3).jpg

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    My prediction on the results of the simulations is that that HL with 7m9c will be very close to HO2 w ASC

    Attached is a chart comparing CC of HL w 7m9c to HO2 w ASC. HO2 w ASC wins WACC by 9.7%. The less important Other Case CC HL w 7m9c wins by 3.4%. Late Surrender HL2 w 7m9c wins again at 5.9% and these late surrender changes are VERY important to increasing the SCORE especially since max bets are out on the surrendering the 7m9c helps the most with.

    For the shoe game betting efficiency is more important that playing efficiency. HL w 7m9c is almost equat to HO2 w ASC for betting with HL w 7m9c coming in at 0.2% higher than HO2 w ASC.

    So betting is essenitaly equal and what HL w 7m9c loses with WACC it makes up with OCCC and LSCC.

    So my prediction is that the very simply HL with 7m9c will come in very, very close to HO2 w ASC for S17, DAS, LS game.

    Important hat Late Surrender is offered otherwise HL w 7m9c will lose to HO2 w ASC.
    HL w 7m9c vs HO2 w ASC.jpg

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    What you're claiming may be true, but you have to understand the apples-to-oranges type of comparison. You are using two different side counts, whereas Hi-Opt II uses only one. So, if you want to allow the latter to choose yet another rank to side count, maybe that would make for a more meaningful and fairer comparison.

    Don

  9. #9
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,438


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    HL + (1/2)*(7m9c)
    Its modified Hi Lo = EBJ 2. I use this.
    "Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    My goal was to increase the HL score the most with the simplest side count.

    Many players do not want to give up the HL so here is what I came up with. Add 7m9c = seven minus nine count as the side count to the HL when Late Surrender is offered.

    First I want to maximize betting the most. If you use brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) the HL betting correlation coefficient for S17, DAS, LS game increases from 96.5% to 98.1%.

    Second I wanted to increase the SCORE the most.

    A big impact on the SCORE would be obtained by increasing efficiency of Late Surrender on the SCORE since late surrender increases expectation and decreases risk.

    Adding 7m9c helps greatly with surrendering hard 14 v 9, T, A and hard 13 v T. These are important surrender decisions as the index is high so your maximum bet it out so the correct surrender decision are important for these plays.

    So here is how to use 7m9c with HL.

    1. brc = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) Use brc as you used these for betting.

    2. Use 7m9c for help with these decisions. Note the value of "k" in HL + k*(7m9c) is k = 2 in these cases. 7m9c helps a lot with these surrender decisions. dr = decks remaining.
    Surrender h14 v 9 if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
    Surrender h14 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 3*dr
    Surrender h14 v A if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
    Surrender h13 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 7*dr (-- fixed, I had repeated hard 14 v 9 by accident)

    3. Attached is a list of all changes with 7m9c but these four changes above and betting are the most important. You can use HL for everything else. So no need to learn anything new.

    HL w 7m9c (1).jpg
    HL w 7m9c (2).pdf
    HL w 7m9c (3).jpg
    Oh no!!! This crap again. Did you compare your system to Hi-lo with side count 7? I am guessing that Hi-lo with side count 7 vs Hi-lo performs 6% better in SCORE. Counting the 9s as negative will have a harmful effect on insurance and hard 12 decisions but it does enhance the 14, 15 and 16 decisions. Siding count both 7s and 9s doesn't alway improve SCORE.

    All I see in the tables are correlations. You mention you want to increase SCORE. How come there are no calculation for SCORE in your charts. You thinking that increase the correlations would increase SCORE I don't think this is necessary true.
    Last edited by seriousplayer; 11-27-2019 at 08:01 PM.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    What you're claiming may be true, but you have to understand the apples-to-oranges type of comparison. You are using two different side counts, whereas Hi-Opt II uses only one. So, if you want to allow the latter to choose yet another rank to side count, maybe that would make for a more meaningful and fairer comparison.

    Don
    The 7m9c is a single side count, not two side counts, it is a single number and is a single integer and level one balanced count and involves recognizing only two ranks, 7s and 9s.

    The 7m9c = seven minus nine count = a single number. You are NOT tracking sevens played and nines played -- you are tracking the difference of sevens played and nines played which is a single number and a single count.

    There are two ranks involved but a single side count and a single integer to remember

    Also unlike the ASC which is an ESTIMATE since it depends on Aces played and an ESTIMATE of decks played, the 7m9c is exact and does not depend on any estimated of decks played.

    So the real question is, is the 7m9c simple to keep with the HL and does including the 7m9c with the HL increase SCORE significantly.

    Both the HL and 7m9c as level one balanced plus/minus counts and are easy to keep. Also the 7m9c does not count any ranks included in the HL (not a requirement but nice) so there is nothing to get mixed up with.

    Adding 1/2 of 7m9c to HL gives a brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) that has betting accuracy of the HO2 w ASC. Remember for the shoe game, betting is most important so you want the highest betting efficiency.

    In addition, if surrender is offered, 7m9c helps greatly with surrendering hard 14 v 9, T, A and hard 13 v T where you have large bets out.

    So as I said earlier,
    if Late Surrender is offered
    , I believe that the HL with 7m9c will come in close to the HO2 with ASC. What the HL w 7m9c losses in regular blackjack efficiency it picks up in late surrender efficiency and the betting efficiency of HL w 7m9c and HO2 w ASC are the same.

    So again, my prediction is if Late Surrender if offered, HL with 7m9c will come in close to HO2 w ASC.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Adding 1/2 of 7m9c to HL gives a brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) that has betting accuracy of the HO2 w ASC.
    Simulation needed to prove claim. Hi-lo + side count 7 improve Hi-lo 6% in SCORE. Why would counting 9s as negative perform on par with Hi-OPT II with ASC?

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Oh no!!! This crap again. Did you compare your system to Hi-lo with side count 7? I am guessing that Hi-lo with side count 7 vs Hi-lo performs 6% better in SCORE. Counting the 9s as negative will have a harmful effect on insurance and hard 12 decisions but it does enhance the 14, 15 and 16 decisions. Siding count both 7s and 9s doesn't alway improve SCORE.

    All I see in the tables are correlations. You mention you want to increase SCORE. How come there are no calculation for SCORE in your charts. You thinking that increase the correlations would increase SCORE I don't think this is necessary true.
    Your reply shows me that you do not understand anything that I am doing here. The 7m9c is NOT a side count of 7s and is NOT a side count of 9s.

    As I explained in my last answer, you are NOT keeping track of 7s and 9s, you are keeping track of the DIFFERENCE of 7s and 9's played. A SINGLE INTEGER. You see a 7 come out you add 1 to 7m9c and you see n 9 come out subtract 1 from the 7m9c just like you do with the HL with the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 as +1 and Tens and Aces as -1. With the 7m9c the 7s are +1 and the 9s are -1.

    Since you have a separate side count of 7m9c, you can choose to use this or not in any given situation. For insurance, for example, you would not use 7m9c at all and just use the HL. That is the psrc = HL + k*(7m9c) has k = 0 which give you the HL. For betting you use k = +(1/2) so you add one-half the 7m9c to the HL to get brc = betting running count which is the count you use for betting. And for surrendering hard 14 v 9, T, A or hard 13 v T you use k = 2 so psrc = HL + 2*(7m9c). You can vary k to the optimal value for a given situation and if the HL is the best count for a given situation then k = 0.

    There are extremely basic principles and I am surprised that I even have to explain this to you.

Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-30-2017, 04:24 PM
  2. Help me improve, KO
    By muckz in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 12:08 PM
  3. Francis: One way to improve BJA...
    By Francis in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-06-2002, 03:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.