See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 93

Thread: HiLo + 7m9c Sim Results

  1. #27


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by PinkChip View Post
    The first paragraph is correct, as I conceded already in the old thread (it's only one additional count, of two different ranks, similar to HiLo counting 10 different ranks).
    Saying that intentionally destabilizes, confuses or manipulates the mind of other people. Why NOT one additional count with ONE rank? You are counting more cards in the second situation. One card vs two cards. I don't care you combine two different ranks to make one count. You still need to count two different ranks to make one count.

    In what situation are you keeping track to less cards? Keeping one card to make one additional count or two different ranks to make one additional count??

  2. #28


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by PinkChip View Post
    The first paragraph is correct, as I conceded already in the old thread (it's only one additional count, of two different ranks, similar to HiLo counting 10 different ranks).

    But the second paragraph contains a contradiction: obviously you _have_ to learn a new/additional count, namely the 7m9 count, plus apply three different factors of 1/2, 2 or 3 and do more arithmetics in order to combine the two counts (HiLo and 7m9c) depending on the betting or playing situation. First you deny the necessity of learning a new count and then you claim that the (non-existing) new count is "easy" to incorporate?
    I meant you keep the HL which is used for 90% of the strategy changes. Of course 7m9c is a new count but it is a side count and a level 1 count counting only two ranks. Compare that to level 2 counts that are much more difficult to keep and involve keeping many more ranks and often learning new indices. None of that is necessary since you keep the HL and 7m9c and use 7m9c for only betting and six strategy changes.

    There are only six strategy changes and betting change to apply 7m9c to. All other startegy changes are HL.

    With HL w 7m9c you keep two integers in your head, HL and 7m9c. Or keep HL in your head and use chips for 7m9c.

    For LS all five strategy changes use HL + 2*(7m9c). I do not see how that is difficult to do. If HL = 10 and 7m9c = 4 then HL + 2*(7m9c) = 10 + 2*4 = 18. How do you figure that is hard to do?

    And for standing on hard 14 v T you calcuated HL + 3*(7m9c), also very easy to do.

    And for betting just calculated HL + (1/2)*(7m9c).

    These are not be difficult calculations.

    I think keeping two level one counts, HL and 7m9c, is easier than than the level 2 EBJ2 menitoned earlier which gains about 70% of the gain of the HL w 7m9c as explained in my last thread.

    But to each his own. If you think keeping the 7m9c with the HL is difficult and will lead to errors in your HL count then don't keep the 7m9c and just stlck with the HL. With practice you should be able to keep the 7m9c with the HL. And since neither the 7 nor the 9 are included in the HL, the confusion between HL and 7m9c should be minimal.

    I offered this side count as an choice for the HL player. You have all of the facts so you make your own decision whether the increase in the HL SCORE is worth the effort in adding the 7m9c with the HL.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-16-2020 at 06:36 AM.

  3. #29


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Saying that intentionally destabilizes, confuses or manipulates the mind of other people. Why NOT one additional count with ONE rank? You are counting more cards in the second situation. One card vs two cards. I don't care you combine two different ranks to make one count. You still need to count two different ranks to make one count.

    In what situation are you keeping track to less cards? Keeping one card to make one additional count or two different ranks to make one additional count??
    I personally think a level one plus minus count, counting only two ranks, is easier than keeping a side count, such as the 7 side count that you have mentioned many times before.

    Attached is a two page PDF showing how I would keep the ASC with the HL. The casino I play at offers Lucky Ladies and Super 4 and the ASC helps with both of those bets as you can see from the 2nd page of the two page PDF. If no side bets were offered, the HL w ASC performs about the same as HL w Am6c. HL w ASC gives a better pseudo Ten count than HL w Am6c which makes HL w ASC better for insurance. But HL w Am6c gives better hit/stand hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T decisions than HL w Am6c does. So for regular blackjack with no side bets, HL w ASC and HL w Am6c are approximately equal. But my friend who uses HL wanted a count to help with the side bets mostly so he asked me to calculate HL w ASC which I did in the attached PDF. There is a lot of money to be made with LL and Super 4 if you use the right count for these side bets.

    Also an important point is that Adef or Aexc is an ESTIMATE because you are estimating decks played to calculate the ASC. With plus/minus counts there is no estimate of decks played and the plus/minus count is EXACT.

    But it is a matter of preference. If you prefer a single cared side count as opposed to a plus/minus count then go ahead and use it. The HL with Super 4 and LL side bets ,it is definitely worthwhile to keep ASC with HL. I use the KO with AA89mTc for Lucky Ladies and HL w AA89mTc and Am8c for Super 4 but I an not going into that here as you want to keep things as simple as possible so adding ASC to HL helps with the LL and Super 4 side bets.

    You have mentioned keeping a side count of sevens many, many times and you think that would be a great side count to add to the HL for regular blackjack with no side bets. For betting adjustments you are considering only the 7's played to adjust the HL count for betting. That is not as accurate as using the 7m9c for betting which takes into account both the 7's and 9's played for betting. The 7 side count would also help with strategy changes.

    If I have time I will calculate CC for including a 7 side count with HL since you are so interested in that.

    But my opinion is a seven side count is much more difficult, at least for me, to keep than a plus/minus side count and as I said easier the seven side count is an ESTIMTATE since you are estimating decks played to get the seven side count and plus minus side counts are EXACT.

    But look at the attached PDF so you can get an idea of what I did for the ASC added to HL.

    I am also attaching a PDF that show s how keeping the ASC with the HL helps with LL bets and Super 4 bets.
    HL w ASC.pdf
    HL w ASC for LL and Super 4.pdf
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-16-2020 at 07:11 AM.

  4. #30


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Bottom line is that this system does not beat Hi Opt 2 with ASC. I am looking forward to Bjanalyst's next invention and wish him luck.
    Last edited by BJGenius007; 01-16-2020 at 08:16 AM.

  5. #31


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    Bottom line is that this system does not beat Hi Opt 2 with ASC. I am looking forward to Bjanalyst's next invention and wish him luck.
    My goal was not to beat the HO2 w ASC by using the HL as a base primarcy count. My goal was to find a simple side count to add to the HL to improve the HL system.

    The reason for this is that the hard core HL player (which is every counter I ever meet) will NEVER switch to another count and certaing will never switch to the HO2 w ASC. So beating the HO2 w ASC is irrelvant since the HL player would never swtich to it. So my goal was to come up with a simple side count to add to the HL that will improve the HL so the HL player can keep his HL count which he keeps perfectly and keep the indices and make only a few strategy changes.

    So adding 7m9c to the HL captures over 50% of the HO2 w ASC gain for the back counteed scenarios. The HL player does not have to switch counts or learn a bunch ofnew indices and does have to do a level 2 count. So the HL player can improve his performance with a simple side couunt of 7m9c and six strategy changes and simple adjustment to the HL for betting. So I put this out as an option for the HL player.

    Now Am6c is also a side count I was thinking of. It helps with insurance and hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T which the 7m9c does not help with.

    If two plus/minus side counts were used with the HL, that is, if HL w 7m9c and Am6c were used, then my prediction is the HL w 7m9c and Am6c would come close to the HO2 w ASC. But that involves two side counts which most players would not want to do. But I just wanted to mention that.

    I am attaching a PDF that shows that the CC give a very good prediction of the SCORE. I showed you some pages form TOB by Griffin where he said CC closely reflect efficiencies. SO the higher the CC the higher the efficiencies and the higher the SCORE.

    My prediction with CC has worked every single time with every count system I gave to Gronbog to simulate. As a matter of fact, Gronbog admitted have some problems wit his sims of HL w 7m9c. I told him that I did not see any errors in my analysis and the SCORE must increase with 7m9c is included with HL. So Gronbog revisited his program and found his error and my prediction that the HL SCORE would increase when 7m9c was included proved to be true. The CC have correctly predicted the SCORE every single time!

    So attached are two PDFs.

    The first PDF is my initial prediction of HL w 7m9c which turned out to be true just like every one of my other predictions.

    The second PDF is my prediction with HL w 7m9c and Am6c which my prediction is should be close to and if LS is offered, will probably beat, HO2 w ASC.
    HL w 7m9c CC to predict SCORE.pdf
    HL w 7m9c & Am6c CC to predict SCORE.pdf

  6. #32


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Sigh. 30 posts, on the way to another 150, in which the same facts will be restated 150 times. Sad.

    Don

  7. #33


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Sigh. 30 posts, on the way to another 150, in which the same facts will be restated 150 times. Sad.

    Don
    This is not going to be 150 posts because the readers are polite this time and asking intelligent and thoughtful questions.

    Every single post was a worthwhile post with intelligent questions and there were no repeat questions. I have no problem with these posts since everyone can learn something from them.

    Also there were no mistakes in my HL w 7m9c system and it is an option for the HL player who wants to keep the HL and add a side cont for simple improvements.

    And if Am6c is included the HL w 7m9c and Am6c, I predict, would tie and probably beat HO2 w ASC if LS is offered. So this is a no-nonsense post with intelligent questions. There was not a singlet inappropriate post and all questions were legitimate. So I am happy with this post. If questions are legitimate and you are learning something, who cares how many posts there are.

    I will attach here some more information on my CC and how they can predict the SCORE and can compliment sims.

    I already explained that Gronbog's' initial HL w 7m9c sims showed a decrease in the SCORE. I explained to him that rungs counter to the CC and to logic. I gave him a few ideas on how to trouble shoot his sim program, he found the error and I was proven correct yet again. I have been correct EVRY SINGLE time.

    So here is a short summary of CC and sims, both of which have advantages and disadvantage to analyze various blackjack system and both complement each other and are in agreement.

    Disadvantages of Simulations:

    1. Take a long time to run and are tedious to set up.
    2. Require the calculation of indices for each playing strategy (another potential source of error) for the counts being compared.
    3. There is also the problem of variance with simulations which is reduced by increasing the number of hands simulated.

    Advantages of Correlation Coefficients:

    1. WACC and BCC can be done in a matter of minutes.
    2. WACC and BCC are exact with zero variance.
    3. WACC and BCC used to compare various counts require no indices.


    Correlation Coefficients are calculated with the tag values of the count being analyzed and the EoR. EoR are LSL estimates, so they assume that blackjack is linear. Simulations have no assumptions on blackjack being linear. With less than one deck is remaining, non-linearity kicks in.

    When I first thought about using plus/minus side counts to add to a primary count in 2011 I ran it by ETFAN. ETFAN analyzed my LSL program and verified it was correct. ETFAN also showed me Griffin's PD (Proportional Deflection) technique because ETFAN was a bit laree of my LSL technique. We tests around a dozen different situation with index calculation using PD and LSL and the answers agreed exactly. ETFAN verified my LSL Excel file that I created as correct and I emailed a copy of that program to Gronbog last year.

    FYI I will attach a PDF explaining my LSL technique.
    LSL calculations.pdf

  8. #34
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    tl;dr
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  9. #35
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,438


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Attached is a PDF comparing CC for the most important strategy changes of HL w 7m9c top 6 and EBJ2 / 2.

    So EBJ2 / 2 is a level 2 count. I was trying to keep the level one HL.

    So there are two questions,.

    (1) Is it easier to convert from HL to the EBJ2 / 2 than to add the 7m9c to the HL?

    (2) What are the comparitive strenghts of EBJ2 / 2 and HL w 7m9c top 6.

    If you look at the attached PDF. you will see that the EBJ2 / 2 is HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) which is what is used for betting. So the betting efficinecies of HL w 7m9c and EBJ2 / 2 are equal since they are the same count. Half of the SCORE gain of the HL w 7m9c comes from the increase in betting efficiency.

    So now lets look at the PE. I broke this down into regular blackjack and LS.

    For regular blackjack, the average CC of both the EBJ2 / 2 and HL w 7m9c are approximately equal.

    So the conclusion is that if LS is NOT offered, then EBJ2 / 2 and HL w 7m9c are approximately equal.

    But if LS if offered, you can see a substantial increase in LS CC of HL w 7m9c vs EBJ2 / 2.

    The increase in the LS CC gives the other half of the SCORE increase of HL w 7m9c.

    The increase in the average CC of EBJ2 over HL for LS is 71.8% - 67.8% = 4.0%

    The increase in the average CC of HL w 7m9c over HL for LS is 78.3% - 67.8% = 10.5%

    So for LS, EBJ2 gains (4.0 / 10.5) = 40% of the HL w 7m9c increase in CC.

    So half of the gain in HL w 7m9c SCORE is from LS changes and EBJ2 gets 40% of that gain.

    And EBJ2 gains all of the HL w 7m9c gain in betting since it is the same count for betting.

    So my prediction is that for LS, EBJ2 gain in SCORE over HL is 50% + 40%*(50%) = 70% of the SCORE gain of HL w 7m9c over HL.

    So the final conclusion is, if LS is offered, you swtich from HL to EBJ2 / 2 your SCORE will increase approximately 70% of the SCORE increase if you switch from HL to HL w 7m9c top 6. If LS is not offered, both count systems are approxmiately equal.

    But EBJ2 is a more difficult level two count and HL w 7m9c are two simple level one counts.

    So there are your choices.

    The HL players I know would never swtich to a level 2 count.

    And if they did switch to the EBJ2 /2 they would obtain 70% the gain if they switched to HL w 7m9c Top 6 if LS is offered.
    Attachment 3941
    Good post. But EBJ 2 /2 significantly easier to use, and hand/hour is better. And i do not use value 0.5. I use only 7+7 = +1, or 9-9 = -1. I use pseudo side count.
    Last edited by Gramazeka; 01-16-2020 at 04:09 PM.
    "Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)

  10. #36


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gramazeka View Post
    Good post. But EBJ 2 /2 significantly easier to use, and hand/hour is better. And i do not use value 0.5. I use only 7+7 = +1, or 9-9 = -1. I use pseudo side count.
    OK. Actualy I like the EBJ2 / 2. And you seem to have devised an easy way for you to keep EBJ2 / 2.

    EJB2 /2 is the HL + k*(7m9c) with k = (1/2) for betting and all playing startegy situations, that is, EBJ2 / 2 is HL + (1/2)*(7m9c).

    And EBJ2 does perform well and as I said in my previous post, I predict it gleans 70% of the SCORE increase from using HL + k*(7m9c) top 6 over the HL.

    But it is a level 2 count, You found an easy way for you to keep it but every single counter I meet uses he HL and they refused to switch from the HL to any other count which is why I came up with side counts to the HL.

    One of the things I do not like about EBJ2 / 2 is that it reduces insurance efficiency. In the exhibit I gave you before I used a straight average of CC. I normally use a weighed average, but I was lazy and just wanted to make a point. Obviously insurance CC should be given extra weigh just like other important decisions like hard 16 v T and hard 15 v T but I did not give them weights. I calculated a straight average and not a weighted average CC. But you get the point of HL + k*(7m9c) and EJB2 / 2 and you got the point.

    So the choices are two level one counts, HL and 7m9c, or a single level 2 count, EBJ2 / 2.

    It is a personal choice of which is easier to use. You get a little more power with HL w 7m9c but you keep two level one counts. if you use a single level 2 count, EBJ2 / 2, you gain almost the same power. The question is which is easier for the player. Many players have of trouble with level 2 counts but then some players may have trouble with keeping a side count with the HL. What I did was present the information so the individual player can make an informed decision.

    I had suggested adding a second side count, Am6c, to the HL so you would have HL w 7m9c and Am6c. But you could also use just the primacy count EJB2 / 2 with Am6c so you have only one primary count and one side count. But your preliminary count is a level 2 count. So EJB2 / 2 with Am6c would perform close to HL w 7m9c and Am6c.

    I had calculated HL2 w Am6c where HL2 is HL with 2s and 7s counted as (1/2). With the HL2 insurance efficiency is actually increased as opposed to EBJ2 / 2 having insurance efficacy decreased. And my CC comparisons showed HL 2 w Am6c performing very close to HO2 w ASC. So if I was going to use a level 2 count I think I would prefer HL 2 w Am6c instead of EJB2 / 2 with Am6c. But either is fine.

    So when I get a chance I will post details of HL w Am6c and if readers are interested Gronbog said he would do sims. But as you know, I can give a very good prediction of the sims results from my CCs.

    Also just for the sake of being complete, serious player has mentioned time and time again on keeping a side count of 7's with the HL. For betting, brc = HL + (1/2)*(7def) where 7def = deficiency of 7's remaining. The BE of brc = HL + (1/2)*(7def) is not as great as the BE of brc = HL+ (1/2)*(7m9c) since only the 7's are included to increase BE with a side count of 7s. Maybe there is a bigger increase in PE. But since serious player is really interested in the results of adding a 7 side count to the HL, I may do my calculations and post them when I get a chance.

    Finally if I see readers are interested in HL w Am6c results I can post HL w 7m9c and Am6c and HL2 with Am6c results.

    As you know I do not like side counts of single cards. I have a really hard time keeping side counts of single cards which are also APPROXIMATE since you have to estimate decks played. I like plus/minus side counts which are very easy to do and are EXACT.

    I have analyzed HL for the hard core HL player who refuses to change the HL count. So below I will explain how I play blackjack. I am not suggesting you do this but just explaining what I do. Also I tried to teach this unsuccessfully to counters I meet at the casino but every single counter use the HL and refused to switch to another count. However one of the counters wanted to keep a side count of Aces to add to the HL so I did my analysis o that and emailed it to me. As I posted earlier, HL w ASC has the same power as HL w Am6c if no side bets. But with Super 4 and LL, keeping a side count of Aces helps with those side bets much more than keeping Am6 does.

    Here is how I play. I do use KO not HL. I keep the KO with two sde counts (using chips) and have absolutely no problem and can play for hours on end with no exhaustion an no errors. I use KO with AA89mTc and Am8c (because of Super 4 bet which I describe below). I have tried keeping 5m7c as a third side count, all side counts with chips. My main problem with keeping a 3rd side count is real estate - I am running out of room on where to put my three stacks of chips and they bump into each other. Thus I stick with two stacks of chips for my two side counts. So it is not the difficulty of keeping three side counts, it is more that I ran out of room of where to put the third stack of chips. I have kept three side counts but I have decided to just stock with two side counts. If Super 4 were not offered, then I would just use KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c. I replaced 5m7c with Am8c for Super 4 betting.

    Also I know that I am looked down by many forum readers who play big money because I play $5 tables with maximum bets of two hands of $40 or three ands of $30 and maybe a bit more if I am winning. But I also have the LL bets and Super 4 bets that I can win at so no need for huge blackjack bets.

    So personally, I do not understand these forum readers complaining that keeping a side count is difficult. But the HL players I meet also say keeping a side count is difficult. I tried vey hard to explain how I keep the side counts but players have problems. So I do not know what to say about that other than they have to practice and get used to keeping side counts.

    I use chips because I am lazy and the casino I play at does not care and I get zero heat - I actually use KO w AA89mTc and Am8c and I use Am8c instead of the 5m7c because this casino offers Super 4 and Am8c helps with Super 4 bet. The casino I play at also offers Lucky Ladies with full payout. So I use LLc = Tc (prefect Ten count) = KO + AA89mTc for LL and I use KO - (1/2)*(AA89mTc) - 1.5*(Am8c) for Super 4 bet. I use chips for AA89mtc and Am8c and I update my AA89mtC on the fly and update my Am8c after the cards are on the table. I can do this for hours on end with zero fatigue and errors. I have tired and was able to keep a three side count, 5m7c, with my chips to improve KO blackjack betting, but I had trouble of where to place the 3rd stack of chips. The 5m7c for blackjack is not as important as the gain in Super 4 and Lucky Ladies for me. That is because I play at $5 blackjack tables and my maximum bet is two hands of $40 dollars or three hands of $30 and maybe a bit more if I am winning. Minimum bet is one hand at $5 or I leave the table and put a marker there if the count is bad. So I have three opportunities to bet: regular blackjack, Super 4 and Lucky Ladies. So the LL and Super 4 payouts are significate compared to my blackjack bets so that is why I decided not to keep the 5m7c as third side count. If your blackjack bets were in the hundreds of dollars I would then say keep the 5m7c. So the casino I play at, which is 17 miles form where I live, had $5 blackjack six deck blackjack table, five decks deals (sometimes more form some dealers), S17, DAS, LS, Super 4 and Lucky Ladies will full payout. Also hey let you paly up to three hands so when LL bet is good. I try to play three hands as he LL bets are independent of the blackjack be and each other. I got around 3 or 4 times a week, sometimes more, and I have hit QHQHQ for 200 to one payout 4 times in the last six months and I hit QHQH with 1,000 to one payout also. I get zero, heat, comps and everyone likes me, And I am sure to tip the dealer. On Sunday I god QHQH (LLc was over 40) and had a dollar tip for the dealer so the dealers got a $200 tip. So the dealers like me as well. When LL is good, I often bet $1 on several LL hands for the dealer so they get a good tip if I hit the LL. On Monday of this week,S4c was very high and I got trip Aces for $750 and a pair of Aces for $50 for two Super 4 bets. The deck was full of Aces so I bet Super 4. So I have ideal conditions and zero hear and I can use two stack of chips for my side counts and no one cares and I get comps. I make sure they think I ma losing as when I cash in, I cas if for $200 and $100 in green which I put in my pocket. If I need more chips I buy in for another $100 in red so they keep on seeing $100 buy ins. And then when table because of a bad count and I have hem put markers for my spot, I go to the cashier and cash in my pocket so when I come back to the table, I buy in again with cash to make it look like I am a loser. Also remember SD(AA89mTc) = SD(HL) so it is often the case I am betting LL when tc(KO) = 0, 1 or 2 if AA89mTc is sufficiently high Also I sometimes bet Super 4 at very low tc(KO) if AA89mTc and Am8c are very negative.

    So getting back to the HL and side counts. When I get a chance I will post HL w 7SC for the benefit of serious player. I will also post HL w Am6c.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-16-2020 at 09:09 PM.

  11. #37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    I think keeping two level one counts, HL and 7m9c, is easier than than the level 2 EBJ2 menitoned earlier which gains about 70% of the gain of the HL w 7m9c as explained in my last thread.
    HL and 7m9c gains 70% of 2 EBJ2 is weak. I did a lot of simulations on a lot of count systems and I already know which level 1 count system could be beat your HL and 7m9c using the running count only. You still need to side count but same approach. I know three card counting systems that could outperform your HL and 7m9c. All three are level 1 counts with side counts, too.
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    The casino I play at offers Lucky Ladies and Super 4 and the ASC helps with both of those bets as you can see from the 2nd page of the two page PDF.
    You got to be kidding when you said to use your HL and 7m9c count for Lucky Ladies!!! Are you crazy? It is not optimal because you haven’t improved the IC of the count. Since you said to use Hi-Lo insurance index for playing. So that mean the IC would be .76 the same as the Hi-lo count. To attack the Lucky Ladies you would want a count with a IC higher than .76.

  12. #38


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    HL and 7m9c gains 70% of 2 EBJ2 is weak. I did a lot of simulations on a lot of count systems and I already know which level 1 count system could be beat your HL and 7m9c using the running count only. You still need to side count but same approach. I know three card counting systems that could outperform your HL and 7m9c. All three are level 1 counts with side counts, too.

    You got to be kidding when you said to use your HL and 7m9c count for Lucky Ladies!!! Are you crazy? It is not optimal because you haven’t improved the IC of the count. Since you said to use Hi-Lo insurance index for playing. So that mean the IC would be .76 the same as the Hi-lo count. To attack the Lucky Ladies you would want a count with a IC higher than .76.
    Read my last post:
    "The casino I play at also offers Lucky Ladies with full payout. So I use LLc = Tc (prefect Ten count) = KO + AA89mTc for LL and I use KO - (1/2)*(AA89mTc) - 1.5*(Am8c) for Super 4 bet"

    And the post you are referencing was when I said I used Aces Side Count with the HL to help with LL for the HL player and I attached PDFs with CC for that in a previous post. ASC = Ace Side Count, not 7m9c. So for the HL player I suggested HL w ASC for Lucky Ladies.

    "The casino I play at offers Lucky Ladies and Super 4 and the ASC helps with both of those bets as you can see from the 2nd page of the two page PDF."

    I also said that one of my friends who will never switch form the HL asked me to analyze using a ASC for the HL for the Super 4 bet and LL. I did. The HL w ASC helps with both the Super 4 and LL bets. I posted PDFs with this analysis previously..

    FYI I actually performed my own analysis of KO + AA89mTc for the Lucky Ladies bet which I will attach to this email.

    Also attached is my analysis of using a side count of sevens with the HL. I compared HL w 7m9c to HL w 7SC.

    As you can see the BE of HL + (1/2)*(7def) is 0.6% below the BE of HL + (1/2)*(7m9c)

    For simplicity I use starting average CC. In a full blown analysis I would have used weighted average CC. But the average CC is good enough to see what a 7SC gets us.

    For regular blackjack, HL + k*(7def) CC is 1.8% greater than HL + k*(7m9c) but for LS HL + k*(7def) CC is 0.7% less.

    So overall HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c perform approximately equal. But my preference is plus/minus side counts because for me they are much easier to keep than a side count of a single rank and also the plus/minus side count is EXACT whereas a side count of a particular rank is only approximate as you need to estimate decks played.

    So read the two PDFs attached and you can see details of HL w 7SC compared to HL w 7m9c and you can see my LL analysis of KO + AA89mTc.

    So please read posts carefully and look at attachments and then if you still have questions, let me know. .
    HL w 7m9c vs HL w 7def.pdf
    Lucky Ladies using KO + AA89mTc.pdf
    Lucky Ladies analysis.pdf
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-17-2020 at 12:31 AM.

  13. #39


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Sigh. 30 posts, on the way to another 150, in which the same facts will be restated 150 times. Sad.

    Don
    Agree. This guy will not be stopped, as we have all seen before. He answers any reply within minutes...with nothing new. He won't reply to those that reply to him...except for repeating the same nonsense as his previous replies.
    I still say uggg.
    No matter what Don or ANYONE says ever...this guy is like Zee and will never address the reply...he will just continue forever, until he can feel like he is right. It is a disorder.
    Last edited by Counting_Is_Fun; 01-17-2020 at 01:00 AM.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Complete Zen Count vs HiLo Results
    By Grobbelaar in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-01-2023, 07:30 PM
  2. Add 7m9c to HL to improve betting and surrender
    By bjanalyst in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 186
    Last Post: 12-24-2019, 12:30 PM
  3. HiLo for Sp 21?
    By Montyb50 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-15-2018, 11:45 AM
  4. 2015 Q1 Results summary!!! - Post your results
    By mickeymouse in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-01-2015, 08:24 PM
  5. HILO COUNTING VS HILO ll with ACE sidecounting
    By chang04133 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-06-2013, 08:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.