The obsession with me continues. Why post, bring my name in it. Love?Originally Posted by Counting_Is_Fun
It didn't matter the fact is that you didn't improve insurance. Your insurance correlation would be the same as Hi-Lo. Since you didn't improve at all as you mention in previous post. As it is indicated in your pdf files. You did a Lucky Ladies analysis but at what count do you bet the Lucky Ladies? With what amount. We are talking about Hi-lo + Am9c. What about analysis for your Super 4? Your counts are more theortical than practical. How do you implement Hi-lo + Am9c in Lucky Ladies. If that is the case it is not valid that you Hi-lo +Am9c would improve Lucky Ladies decision.
I have to answer this post since I have been misquoted. You did not read my posts and attachments carefully. I never mentioned Am9c, I said ASC. And I also showed when to bet insurance, LL and Super 4 in my PDFs and I showed in another PDF posted that HL with your side count of sevens, HL + k*(7def) is approximately the same as HL + k*(7m9c). I will attach one page from a PDF I already posted that shows HL w ASC which you did not read carefully before making your post.
Please, only post with new questions that I did not answer previously and read my posts carefully before posting a reply with something I never said.
HL w ASC.pdf
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-17-2020 at 06:58 AM.
The count we are talking about in this post is Hi-lo+ 7m9c not Hi-lo + Ace. The simulation was done for Hi-lo + 7m9c not for Hi-lo + Ace. You didn't answer the question about Hi-lo + 7m9c count regarding Lucky Ladies because you keep mentioning the Hi-lo + Ace which was not talked about this is thread. Here in this thread we are talking about Hi-lo + 7m9c only and not any other count. So don't start adding and subtracting things. My question to you is how does Hi-lo + 7m9c count improve the decision for the Lucky Ladies side bet since your IC for Hi-lo + 7m9c count is the same as regular Hi-lo and you don't have index deviation for insurance? Answer that question and stop talking about Hi-lo+ A.
You missed my point. I didn't in any way advocate the 7m9c count. Au contraire, I said that I consider it too difficult (see also the next paragraph of my post). I just said that 7m9c is an additional count (considering 2 ranks in one running count), similar to HiLo (which considers 10 ranks in one running count). So the HiLo plus 7m9c requires keeping and updating two running counts simulataneously, which is way too complicated for my taste. The same holds for one or two additional side counts. I don't use any of these, not even HiLo, so am absolutely not interested in "manipulating" or recommending such a counting method.
True, this post was about the HL w 7m9c.
But somewhere along the line other issues popped up which were independent of the 7m9c and probably should have been included in another post but since the issues came up here I answered them.
I think that began with you saying a seven side count would be great and then other non-related issues came up. So I ran my CC for HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c and basically they are approximately equivalent in power. I personally like plus/minus side counts because they are EXACT and for me much easier to keep. But if you prefer a seven side count then that is fine also. But you will then need indices for HL w 7SC which I could, but did not, generate because my post was about HL w 7m9c not HL w 7SC. I just posted the CC for HL w 7m9c and HL w 7SC for comparison of strength.
I said from the very beginning of my first thread on HL w 7m9c that HL w 7m9c helps with betting and late surrender. I never said it helped with insurance or Lucky Ladies or anything else. I said if you wanted help with insurance then consider Am6c or ASC. I showed that both HL w Am6c and HL w ASC are approximately the same strength if no side bets - ASC helps more with the insurance bet than Am6c does and Am6c helps more with hit./standing on hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T than ASC does. But if LL or Super 4 are offered, better to use ASC as they help more with these side bets than Am6c does.
And remember, the HL w 7m9c top 6 says use the 7m9c with the HL for betting, the top six decisions (standing on hard 14 v T, surrendering h14 v 9, T, A , h 13 v T and 8,8 v T DAS) and use the stand alone HL for every other decision. So with just six strategy changes and an adjustment for betting you gain for back counting scenarios over 50% of the HO2 w ASC gain over HL.
I devised this HL w 7m9c as an option for the HL players who wants to keep the HL and wanted a simple improvement. To help will insurance and standing on hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T then use Am6c or ASC with the HL.
Another reader posted the EJB2 / 2 which is the HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) being used for betting and all strategy changes. But it is a level 2 count and I made my system for HL players who want to keep the level one HL.
I showed that the EBJ2 / 2 captures around 70% of the HL w 7m9c gain over the HL. So is easier to keep a level 2 count and no side count or two level one counts? That is a personal decision but from the players I meet, they are all HL players and would never switch to another count and especially a level two count. It was for these players that I came up with the HL w 7m9c.
If additional improvement is desired then another side count, such as Am6c, needs to be added. So you have HL w 7m9c & Am6c, the level one HL with two level one side counts.
I just gave a cursory explanation of HL w Am6c or HL w ASC in the threads in this post because this post is mainly about HL w 7m9c.If there is interest in HL w Am6c or HL w 7m9c and Am6c then another post would be needed and readers of this post would have to express interest in this analysis. If not, I will just leave it at HL w 7m9c.
For the EBJ2 / 2 player mentioned above, he would have level 2 EBJ2 / 2 w Am6c since he is using a level 2 primary count and one level one side count.
So you ask for the HL w 7m9c index for insurance. Well insurance is not one of the top 6 plays so you use the stand alone HL count for insurance which index is 3.
PS:One small typo in the PDF I attached with HL w ASC. The chart shows doubling hard 10 v T for HL + k*(Adef) with k = (-1) and expected value index = 3.9 which is correct, so using 4 for expected value index, double hard 10 v T if HL + (-1)*(Adef) >= 4*dr or double if HL + Aexc >= 4*dr.
I had a typo in my PDF with HL w ASC where I wrote double hard 10 v A if HL + Aexc >= 4*dr. It should be expected value double hard h 10 v T if HL + Aexc >= 4*dr to agree with the chart above.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-18-2020 at 06:53 AM.
HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c are not equivalent in power because HL w 7SC improves the IC and have index deviations for insurance the HL w 7m9c. In addition, HL w 7SC improve the betting correlation (BC) which in my opinion beat your HL w 7m9c count. The HL w 7SC can help with Lucky Ladies because it boost the insurance correlation and devise a better insurance index.
So the bottom line is that the HL w 7m9c doesn't help with Lucky Ladies. You even said it.
Don't care
How did you verify that EBJ2 / 2 captures around 70% of the HL w 7m9c gain over the HL when no simulation was done to compare EBJ2 / 2 with HL w 7m9c. You are just making stuff up.
I thought you say that you would add any more components to your Hi-lo with 7m9c and now it not. You are suggesting adding the Am6c for Lucky Ladies. So the beginning statement from you was a lie.
I heard this statement stated in six different ways. A different way of saying that HL w 7m9c would not improve insurance decision. Therefore, it would not help with the Lucky Ladies side bet.
Yes, because Red Seven and KO are level 1 counts. I don't know about BRH 0. I am guessing you mean BRH Lite which is a level 2 version of Red Seven. EBJ 2 better beat KO and Red Seven since it is a level 2 count. The only difference is BRH 0 don't count the 9s as -1. So it is debatable whether EBJ 2 would beat BRH 0. The indices and bet spread for BRH 0 is in both running count and true count. Since EBJ 2 a balanced count it might beat BRH 0 in running count mode but might not beat BRH 0 in true count mode. We gonna have do a simulation and compare.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-18-2020 at 10:51 AM.
I would have to disagree. I seem something different. For example, BRH I beats Uston SS and it's not suppose to beat SS. Uston SS have a BC of .993 and BRH I have a BC of .988 both are level 3 counts but BRH I happen to beat Uston SS.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks