Secondary count for insurance

[Phoebe]

I have no idea what Richard was thinking, but his example for the secondary count is all wrong. Imagine if you had seen 12 aces to that point, which is exactly normal. He would have you add 24 to -3, yielding +21. TC would be 21/3 = +7, and he would have you insure. Completely wrong.

Merci Don.
What is surprising is that he computed and (wrongly) improved c-SCORE

And that everybody, before me, uncompromising approved this method.
For instance ... https://www.blackjackinfo.com/commun...rd-reid.24544/

[Ole]

Don, i read your post #8 straight through and didn't notice the typos st all until i got to the end, and then was ROFL. i still can't stop laughing. That's great.

Also, i blame SpellCheck for a lot of my typos. I'll type or swype "you got" and I'll even see a slightly mispelled "you got" while I'm writing, and later look back a few sentences later and the software changed it to "toy hour" or something.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

[Ole]

But what I don't understand is how he can uses the same index (+6)

Phoebe

Phoebe,
you asked why the index for insurance remains 6, even when applying the Ace side count.

Well, I don't know Richard Reid's system, but I do use an Ace side count with my own insurance decisions. I multiply the difference between played Aces and normally expected Aces by 2, add it to the Running Count, and take the Ace adjusted true count.


Adding the Ace side count improves insurance correlation by accounting for more of the total played cards, but the index itself only needs to change at a decimal level.

For example, in High-Low, Stanford Wong gives 3.0 as the index for insurance for six-deck games. If applying an Ace side count the ideal new index is 2.8. (Wong, PBJ, 1981, p.127). But in my opinion, both of these indices round to a simple 3.

So, perhaps Mr. Reid is just rounding his new adjusted index to 6 to compromise it with his old level 2 index of 6.

Ole

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

[Phoebe]

So, perhaps Mr. Reid is just rounding his new adjusted index to 6 to compromise it with his old level 2 index of 6.

Not only. As Don said, he also forgets to remove from the Aces the number of Aces expected and to multiply by 4 instead of 2

[DSchles]

I'll even see a slightly mispelled "you got"

Hmmm.

Don