Search google “Meet Alex, the Russian Casino Hacker Who Makes Millions Targeting Slot Machines”
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.
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
Last edited by Norm; 12-11-2019 at 03:58 AM.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Last edited by James989; 12-11-2019 at 05:22 AM.
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 ?
Bookmarks