Add 7m9c to HL to improve betting and surrender

[Norm]

Yes, it will do that.

[seriousplayer]

Some of us have known the answer to this question for over a month.

Don

I already knew the answer, too. But he refuses to listen.

[bjanalyst]

Yes, it will do that.

Perfect!!! Thanks for letting me know. I will then buy this program. I need to find out the problem with my HL w 7m9c indices. My Excel file produced correct indices for all of the other sims that Gronbog did but for some reason this very same program is not working for the top 6 HL w 7m9c indices. Thanks for the information. I need to get to the bottom of this problem.

[bjanalyst]

Yes, it will do that.

Here are my calucations of HL w 7m9c indices attached aat a PDF. Ntoe that Gronbog gave me published HO2 w ASC and HL published indices for the top 6 strategy plays and my using SDs & CCs applied to HO2 w ASC indices I was able to get the HL indices which agreed with Wong's publshed indices. So I used sthis same technique to get the HL w 7m9c top 6 indices. If it worked to get the HL indices from HO2 w ASC indicse then it should also work to get the HL w 7m9c indices.

The only way I can know for sure it to run CV index genetarot for these top 6 plays using the tag values of HL w 7m9c. I am glad I finally have a way to verify the indices because I could not figure out what I did wrong at this point.
SD & CC.pdf

[lij45o6]

Here are my calucations of HL w 7m9c indices attached aat a PDF. Ntoe that Gronbog gave me published HO2 w ASC and HL published indices for the top 6 strategy plays and my using SDs & CCs applied to HO2 w ASC indices I was able to get the HL indices which agreed with Wong's publshed indices. So I used sthis same technique to get the HL w 7m9c top 6 indices. If it worked to get the HL indices from HO2 w ASC indicse then it should also work to get the HL w 7m9c indices.

The only way I can know for sure it to run CV index genetarot for these top 6 plays using the tag values of HL w 7m9c. I am glad I finally have a way to verify the indices because I could not figure out what I did wrong at this point.
SD & CC.pdf

I still don't get why you are :

1.) Still so focused on using correlation coefficients as a benchmark for determining if a system is better than another.
2.) Using cryptic nomenclature for both labelling and mathematical symbols.
3.) Insisting that these 6 are key indicies when page 30 in ToBJ indicates otherwise.

Your time would be better spent on finding index values that offer greater return for less effort (think INS and Hard 16 vs T) and finding key cards that can be combined to simplify betting and playing while simultaneously being more equitable than that of your previous secondary systems.

[bjanalyst]

I still don't get why you are :

1.) Still so focused on using correlation coefficients as a benchmark for determining if a system is better than another.
2.) Using cryptic nomenclature for both labelling and mathematical symbols.
3.) Insisting that these 6 are key indicies when page 30 in ToBJ indicates otherwise.

Your time would be better spent on finding index values that offer greater return for less effort (think INS and Hard 16 vs T) and finding key cards that can be combined to simplify betting and playing while simultaneously being more equitable than that of your previous secondary systems.

This is a new and very good question so I will answer it here.

Gronbog already did sims on my systems that increased insurance and standing on hard 16 v T. Gronbog did sims on HL w AA78mTc which gave near perfect insurance (KO w AA89mTc gives perfect insurance) and he also did sims on HL w AA78mTc & 5m6c, using 5m6c increased CC of HL hard 16 v T around 30% to almost 90%. They helped the SCORE but the result was still below the HO2 w ASC. For the shoe game, Wong says improving BE (betting efficiency) is more important than improving PE (playing efficiency).

The reason I chose 7m9c to help with the HL is because it is the simplest side count possible, a level one plus minus count counting only two ranks. Also it improves BE and should, at least I thought, improve LS decisions of hard 14 and hard 13 when your maximum bet is out and LS reduces risk and increases expectation. So that is why I choose 7m9c. But I am having big problems with my top 6 plays.

In my LSL technique I choose my values of k to maximize the infinite deck CC between the tag values of the derived count and the EoR. The values of k and derived counts and indices worked perfectly for previous sims of HL w AA78mTc and HL w AA78mTc and 5m6c and KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc. Every single time I added an extra playing strategies with new derived counts and values of k the SCORE increased.

Now for some reason, this LSL technique is not working for HL w 7m9c. Also the LSL calculated indices d indices for HO2 w ASC had to be increased 20% to match the published indices for standing on hard 14 v T and surrendering hard 14 v 9 and hard 13 v T. That means the infinite FDHA for these plays had to be increased 20% since the LSL technique I developed five years ago and which ETC showed through testing several examples using bot techniques on my Excel spreadsheet that it gave the same results as Peter Griffin's PD (Proportional Deflection) technique to generate indices.

So this LSL technique has worked fine up to now. Now it seems to crash for hard 14 v T stand, and surrendering hard 14 v 9 and hard 13 v T. Five years ago I derived the formula Idx = k*(SD/CC) from LSL technique and it produces correct results of indices between various counts. The LSL technique index is keyed off FDHA. The idx = k*(SD/CC) technique is keyed of the known proven index of another count thereby bypassing FDHA.. Both the LSL technique and the Idx = k*(SD/CC) worked perfectly in dozens of situations until now when the LSL technique has given incorrect indices for the three top 6 situations I mentioned above.

In the last post I included a PDF where I used Idx = k*(SD/CC) on HO2 w ASC and showed I tested it with the top 6 and it produce the HL indices that agreed with Wong's published HL indices. Using these exact same EoR for the three top 6 strategy changes with the HO2 w ASC published indices I derived the indices for HL w 7m9c. If this technique worked with producing the correct indices for HL from HO2 w ASC then it should also work with producing correct indices for HL w 7m9c.

If someone has CV index generator and can generate the indices for HL w 7m9c for my top 6 plays I would appreciate it otherwise I would need to buy it and generate those indices to see what is going on.

Thanks for following my posts.

I will attach my LSL calculating of infinite deck index for standing on hard 14 v T as a PDF so you can see what I am talking about.

So that is why I now need CV Index generator to generate the indices for these top 6 plays.

hard 14 v T stand LSL HL w 7m9c index.pdf

[Norm]

I hope you realize that just because adding an index increases SCORE does not mean that the index is correct. Adding an index that is off by +/-3 will often increase SCORE -- just not optimally.

[seriousplayer]

This is a new and very good question so I will answer it here.

Now for some reason, this LSL technique is not working for HL w 7m9c. Also the LSL calculated indices d indices for HO2 w ASC had to be increased 20% to match the published indices for standing on hard 14 v T and surrendering hard 14 v 9 and hard 13 v T. That means the infinite FDHA for these plays had to be increased 20% since the LSL technique I developed five years ago and which ETC showed through testing several examples using bot techniques on my Excel spreadsheet that it gave the same results as Peter Griffin's PD (Proportional Deflection) technique to generate indices.

So this LSL technique has worked fine up to now. Now it seems to crash for hard 14 v T stand, and surrendering hard 14 v 9 and hard 13 v T.

This is probably telling you that your HL+ 7m9c don't work.

[bjanalyst]

I hope you realize that just because adding an index increases SCORE does not mean that the index is correct. Adding an index that is off by +/-3 will often increase SCORE -- just not optimally.

That is why I want the correct HL w 7m9c indices.

I thought of the 7m9c for the HL player who wants to keep the HL count and improve it with as little work as possible.

I use KO but I realize many players will stay with HL so I was trying to help these HL players.

And I chose 7m9c because it helps improve BE and I thought it would help PE with improvements in LS.

I only want to check the top 6 HL w 7m9c indices with CV Index Generator against what I calculated.

HL + 2*(7m9c) is used for the LS plays. Using k = 2 in HL+ k*(7m9c) maximizes CC for these plays
HL + 3*(7m9c) is used to stand on hard 14 v T. Using k = 3 in HL + k*(7m9c) maximizes CC for this play.

So the question is what are the indices for these plays. I calculated indices using Idx = k*(SD/CC) and I posted a PDF with these calculations. Using this formula with HO2 w ASC published indices I was able to generate the HL indices which agreed with Wong's published indices for these 6 plays. Therefore applying this same formula to HO2 w ASC I calculated HL w 7m9c indices for these top 6 plays. If this gave correct HL indices this exact same technique using the EoR and HO2 w ASC indices in getting the HL indices for the top 6 should also give the correct HL w 7m9c indices for the top 6. But the sims show that this calculated index may be incorrect which why I would like CV index generator to tell me the top 6 indices for these plays. I used this same technique with the other sims that Gronbog did for me and it worked fine but it is not working for HL w 7m9c which has me totally confused.

The tag values for HL + 2*( 7m9c) are 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, -2, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively.

The tag values for HL + 3*( 7m9c) are 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 0, -3, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively.

So what I want to verify the HL w 7m9c indices for the top 6 plays that i calculated are correct and if not what they are.

So I only need six indices.

Here is my suggested strategy from indices calculated from HO2 w ASC indices and Idx = k*(SD/CC) formula:

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
Stand hard 14 v T if HL + 3*(7m9c) >= 12*dr

So here is what I calculated as the indices.

HL + 2*(7m9c) is used for the LS surrender plays:
surrender 8, 8 v T DAS index is 2
surrender hard 14 v 9 index is 8
surrender hard 14 v T index is 3
surrender hard 14 v A index is 6
surrender hard 13 v T index is 9

HL + 3*(7m9c) is used for standing on hard 14 v T
stand on hard 14 v T index is 12

So I was wondering if someone can use CV index generator to check these indices I calculated and if they are not correct to give me the correct indices. Gronbog must have the correct indices for his sims.

Note that these indices seem high and you would think they would not occur often. But you are basing that fact on the HL reaching these high true counts. But you are using HL + 2*(7m9c) and HL + 3*(7m9c) here and they have much higher SD than that HL.

For example,
HL + 2*(7m9c) reaches a true count of 10 as often as HL reaches true count of 7.5

HL + 3*(7m9c) reaches a true count of 10 as often as HL reaches true count of 6

So is someone on the forum can give me these six indices generated from CV index generator for these six plays I would appreciate it.

Otherwise I would have to buy CV index generator (which I probably should do anyhow)

[seriousplayer]

That is why I want the correct HL w 7m9c indices.

I thought of the 7m9c for the HL player who wants to keep the HL count and improve it with as little work as possible.

I use KO but I realize many players will stay with HL so I was trying to help these HL players.

And I chose 7m9c because it helps improve BE and I thought it would help PE with improvements in LS.

I only want to check the top 6 HL w 7m9c indices with CV Index Generator against what I calculated.

HL + 2*(7m9c) is used for the LS plays. Using k = 2 in HL+ k*(7m9c) maximizes CC for these plays
HL + 3*(7m9c) is used to stand on hard 14 v T. Using k = 3 in HL + k*(7m9c) maximizes CC for this play.

So the question is what are the indices for these plays. I calculated indices using Idx = k*(SD/CC) and I posted a PDF with these calculations. Using this formula with HO2 w ASC published indices I was able to generate the HL indices which agreed with Wong's published indices for these 6 plays. Therefore applying this same formula to HO2 w ASC I calculated HL w 7m9c indices for these top 6 plays. If this gave correct HL indices this exact same technique using the EoR and HO2 w ASC indices in getting the HL indices for the top 6 should also give the correct HL w 7m9c indices for the top 6. But the sims show that this calculated index may be incorrect which why I would like CV index generator to tell me the top 6 indices for these plays. I used this same technique with the other sims that Gronbog did for me and it worked fine but it is not working for HL w 7m9c which has me totally confused.

The tag values for HL + 2*( 7m9c) are 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, -2, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively.

The tag values for HL + 3*( 7m9c) are 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 0, -3, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively.

So what I want to verify the HL w 7m9c indices for the top 6 plays that i calculated are correct and if not what they are.

So I only need six indices.

Here is my suggested strategy from indices calculated from HO2 w ASC indices and Idx = k*(SD/CC) formula:

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
Stand hard 14 v T if HL + 3*(7m9c) >= 12*dr

So here is what I calculated as the indices.

HL + 2*(7m9c) is used for the LS surrender plays:
surrender 8, 8 v T DAS index is 2
surrender hard 14 v 9 index is 8
surrender hard 14 v T index is 3
surrender hard 14 v A index is 6
surrender hard 13 v T index is 9

HL + 3*(7m9c) is used for standing on hard 14 v T
stand on hard 14 v T index is 12

So I was wondering if someone can use CV index generator to check these indices I calculated and if they are not correct to give me the correct indices. Gronbog must have the correct indices for his sims.

Note that these indices seem high and you would think they would not occur often. But you are basing that fact on the HL reaching these high true counts. But you are using HL + 2*(7m9c) and HL + 3*(7m9c) here and they have much higher SD than that HL.

For example,
HL + 2*(7m9c) reaches a true count of 10 as often as HL reaches true count of 7.5

HL + 3*(7m9c) reaches a true count of 10 as often as HL reaches true count of 6

So is someone on the forum can give me these six indices generated from CV index generator for these six plays I would appreciate it.

Otherwise I would have to buy CV index generator (which I probably should do anyhow)

Stupid and untrue writing! You gotta stop with these posts that have no meaning and makes no sense.

[Counting_Is_Fun]

That is why I want the correct HL w 7m9c indices.

I thought of the 7m9c for the HL player who wants to keep the HL count and improve it with as little work as possible.

I use KO but I realize many players will stay with HL so I was trying to help these HL players.

And I chose 7m9c because it helps improve BE and I thought it would help PE with improvements in LS.

I only want to check the top 6 HL w 7m9c indices with CV Index Generator against what I calculated.

HL + 2*(7m9c) is used for the LS plays. Using k = 2 in HL+ k*(7m9c) maximizes CC for these plays
HL + 3*(7m9c) is used to stand on hard 14 v T. Using k = 3 in HL + k*(7m9c) maximizes CC for this play.

So the question is what are the indices for these plays. I calculated indices using Idx = k*(SD/CC) and I posted a PDF with these calculations. Using this formula with HO2 w ASC published indices I was able to generate the HL indices which agreed with Wong's published indices for these 6 plays. Therefore applying this same formula to HO2 w ASC I calculated HL w 7m9c indices for these top 6 plays. If this gave correct HL indices this exact same technique using the EoR and HO2 w ASC indices in getting the HL indices for the top 6 should also give the correct HL w 7m9c indices for the top 6. But the sims show that this calculated index may be incorrect which why I would like CV index generator to tell me the top 6 indices for these plays. I used this same technique with the other sims that Gronbog did for me and it worked fine but it is not working for HL w 7m9c which has me totally confused.

The tag values for HL + 2*( 7m9c) are 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, -2, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively.

The tag values for HL + 3*( 7m9c) are 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 0, -3, -1, -1 for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, A respectively.

So what I want to verify the HL w 7m9c indices for the top 6 plays that i calculated are correct and if not what they are.

So I only need six indices.

Here is my suggested strategy from indices calculated from HO2 w ASC indices and Idx = k*(SD/CC) formula:

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
Stand hard 14 v T if HL + 3*(7m9c) >= 12*dr

So here is what I calculated as the indices.

HL + 2*(7m9c) is used for the LS surrender plays:
surrender 8, 8 v T DAS index is 2
surrender hard 14 v 9 index is 8
surrender hard 14 v T index is 3
surrender hard 14 v A index is 6
surrender hard 13 v T index is 9

HL + 3*(7m9c) is used for standing on hard 14 v T
stand on hard 14 v T index is 12

So I was wondering if someone can use CV index generator to check these indices I calculated and if they are not correct to give me the correct indices. Gronbog must have the correct indices for his sims.

Note that these indices seem high and you would think they would not occur often. But you are basing that fact on the HL reaching these high true counts. But you are using HL + 2*(7m9c) and HL + 3*(7m9c) here and they have much higher SD than that HL.

For example,
HL + 2*(7m9c) reaches a true count of 10 as often as HL reaches true count of 7.5

HL + 3*(7m9c) reaches a true count of 10 as often as HL reaches true count of 6

So is someone on the forum can give me these six indices generated from CV index generator for these six plays I would appreciate it.

Otherwise I would have to buy CV index generator (which I probably should do anyhow)

Just buy fucking CV already like everyone told you the first time you came to the forum uggg. Prove your damn system before clogging up the forum and making ridiculous claims that force everyone else to disprove your grandiose false claims blah blah blah.
Do your own work if you want to be taken seriously.
Again, nobody here is "waiting for the results".

[lij45o6]

Norm, I was under the impression that CV does not offer secondary playing counts except side counts for specific ranks? Only for betting, correct?

[Norm]

CVData has the following side count capabilities:

Insurance side count
Ace betting side count
Different counts for betting and playing
Multi-parameter counting
Side counts for side bets

The following use of multiple strategies are also supported:
DD Rescue strategy
Discard Double strategy
Different playing strategies by depth
Different playing strategies by bankroll
Different playing strategies by number of cards in hand
Different playing strategies by value of known next card
Different betting strategies by value of known next card
Different betting strategies by depth
Different betting strategies by bankroll
Alternating betting strategies
Different strategies for known holecard for high and low dlr upcards
Up to four concurrent strategies for partial holecarding