Wong Halves System Complete Index

[lij45o6]

Who am I to argue with Putin?

Am I missing some subtle subtext here?

[Norm]

This is the unique core of the mathematical software of one of the KGB laboratories. Function of exhaustive search, on not infinite deck.

Putin was director of the FSB, successor to the KGB.

[lij45o6]

Putin was director of the FSB, successor to the KGB.

And still to this day uses his KGB knowledge to utilize old Soviet subversion techniques.

As an aside, every time the news uses the acronym "FSB", I think "Front-Side Bus".

[Norm]

Not the Federation of Sneaky Bastards?

[James989]

WONG HALVES COUNTING SYSTEM, 8D, S17, DAS, ENHC, ES10, DAS, DO2, RS2, RSA2, BJ pay 3 to 2.

I have calculated the ev for hand (4,4) vs 4:-

1) (4,4) vs 4 and removed additional 5 cards ( 2 to 6, one card each), TC = +1.02, ev(SPLIT) = +2.32%, ev(HIT) = +5.39%

2) (4,4) vs 4 and removed additional 20 cards ( 2 to 6, four cards each), TC = +3.04, ev(SPLIT) = +8.62%, ev(HIT) = +8.06%


So, I think the index generated(4,4 vs 4, INDEX = +3.2) by Gramazeka is more accurate.

I am NODOBY here, please correct me if I am wrong.

[DSchles]

The correct index is +3. It's what I have for the RPC, it's what Wong gives for Halves in Pro BJ, and it's what Norm shows here: https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

You can't calculate indices as above; you don't account for any neutral cards that are in the group removed, and you have to include them. Doing "reprenstative decks" is never accurate in any event.

Don

[lij45o6]

The correct index is +3. It's what I have for the RPC, it's what Wong gives for Halves in Pro BJ, and it's what Norm shows here: https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

You can't calculate indices as above; you don't account for any neutral cards that are in the group removed, and you have to include them. Doing "reprenstative decks" is never accurate in any event.

Don

What's the deal with Representative Subsets anyway? Why are they (dis)favoured by certain groups?

[James989]

The correct index is +3. It's what I have for the RPC, it's what Wong gives for Halves in Pro BJ, and it's what Norm shows here: https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

You can't calculate indices as above; you don't account for any neutral cards that are in the group removed, and you have to include them. Doing "reprenstative decks" is never accurate in any event.


Don

Totally agreed that "reprenstative decks" is never accurate in any event !

I think should sim through a shoe and calculate the average ev(of 4,4 vs 4) for ALL possible deck compositions that give TC = +3, and repeat for millions of shoe. Is it correct to use this method to find index ?

[James989]

What's the deal with Representative Subsets anyway? Why are they (dis)favoured by certain groups?

If we know a certain Representative Subsets, then it would be much easier to find the index.

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Not the Federation of Sneaky Bastards?

I thought no politics ?

[James989]

The correct index is +3. It's what I have for the RPC, it's what Wong gives for Halves in Pro BJ, and it's what Norm shows here: https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm

You can't calculate indices as above; you don't account for any neutral cards that are in the group removed, and you have to include them. Doing "reprenstative decks" is never accurate in any event.

Don

Can you show me on what page(in Pro BJ) show wong halves index of +3 for (4,4) vs 4 ? What I can found is +1 on Page 283.

WH index.jpg

[Gramazeka]

http://www.cosmodv.narod.ru./ Under this link you will find the hidden source code.

[Norm]

If we know a certain Representative Subsets, then it would be much easier to find the index.

Only problem is that there is no representative subset. There can't be. It's also important to remember that indices interact with one another. Index generation is far more difficult than normal blackjack simulation.