Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 17 of 17

Thread: Multi-Playing Strategy

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Jack Jackson said

    Ya know, to be honest for awhile i couldnt ascertain whether or not you were just joking about the FBM, since after all you do have a jokingly personality...And of course i saw the humorous side of it Honestly, i look forward to seeing it, and even more so to using it.”

    I would never jest on such important concepts, so - For Feel Good Play coupled with improved results, try the FBM ASC. Accessories to inflate results (pun not intended) are also available.
    Hey Freight, can i ask you a honest question here? Im really not for sure on this, so i would like to hear your input.

    Say for example you were using this type of count A-X(12223210-1-3) and were keeping a side count of aces in an ace reckoned count, where the ace is already tagged as +1.. Do you see this as i do, and have to subtract -4 for every surplus ace an only +3 for every(deficit) extra ace, since you tag the ace as +1? Seriously, can you help me out on this?
    Last edited by Jack Jackson; 07-25-2020 at 09:54 PM.
    http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Jackson View Post
    Hey Freight, can i ask you a honest question here? Im really not for sure on this, so i would like to hear your input.

    Say for example you were using this type of count A-X(12223210-1-3) and were keeping a side count of aces in an ace reckoned count, where the ace is already tagged as +1.. Do you see this as i do, and have to subtract -4 for every surplus ace an only +3 for every(deficit) extra ace, since you tag the ace as +1? Seriously, can you help me out on this?
    Since you’ve seriously asked the question, I’ll seriously respond with a reasonable assumption that you’ve run these these tag values for B.C., PE and IC - what are they.

    Once I get that info, and I’m assuming initially that the above Requested numbers come back pretty crappy (at least bc and pe), I now have to ask why you’re Tagging the ace the way you are - looks like an attempt to improve insurance count. If that is in fact the case, why not use halves tag values and utilize the FBM ASC. IC improvement is part iof the gambit. and to concentrate further on IC, hi lo with FBM ASC should surpass easily halves on IC utilizing FBM ASC.

    In any event, provide the reasoning for the tag values, then the question of ace adjustment ca; be answered. Keep in mind, you are asking about an ace reckoned count.
    Last edited by Freightman; 07-26-2020 at 06:15 AM.

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Since you’ve seriously asked the question, I’ll seriously respond with a reasonable assumption that you’ve run these these tag values for B.C., PE and IC - what are they.

    Once I get that info, and I’m assuming initially that the above Requested numbers come back pretty crappy (at least bc and pe), I now have to ask why you’re Tagging the ace the way you are - looks like an attempt to improve insurance count. If that is in fact the case, why not use halves tag values and utilize the FBM ASC. IC improvement is part iof the gambit. and to concentrate further on IC, hi lo with FBM ASC should surpass easily halves on IC utilizing FBM ASC.

    In any event, provide the reasoning for the tag values, then the question of ace adjustment ca; be answered. Keep in mind, you are asking about an ace reckoned count.

    On the Contrary, the Tag values are actually kinda impressive.. The B.C is .9947(+3-) P.E is .676 and the I.C is .9014

    In Regard, to the Question that you asked; first off, it keeps the count balanced while maintaining a good balance in the effects of removal for the other cards. But more importantly, i like it because it tags the Ace as a + card.. Sure, it does help with insurance, but it also helps IMPROVE on ALL hands 11-17.. Most of all it will def. help 11's, 12v6 and ALL 16's..And Although, the effect is negligible it even helps with 12v2 and so on..

    Which leads me back on how to actually side count the ace for betting purposes..And Although the Ace should be adjusted by 3 each, i cant help but to think that you actually need to Adjust the by -4 for every extra Ace seen since the fact its counted as +1..

    IN the First Example, lets say theres one deck dealt from 2 decks and the RC is 0 with NO Aces played.. You should ADD +3 for each Ace your short right? Which of course would be 3x4=+12.

    In the Second Example, lets take the same example, but only this time ALL 8 Aces have been played..So wouldnt you have to subtract -4 for every extra(4x-4+4=12) Ace thats been played? Since the fact, the you Added +1 each for the four extra Aces? which in effect would result in all actuality of being -3 each (4x-4+4=-12)?
    http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Jackson View Post
    On the Contrary, the Tag values are actually kinda impressive.. The B.C is .9947(+3-) P.E is .676 and the I.C is .9014

    In Regard, to the Question that you asked; first off, it keeps the count balanced while maintaining a good balance in the effects of removal for the other cards. But more importantly, i like it because it tags the Ace as a + card.. Sure, it does help with insurance, but it also helps IMPROVE on ALL hands 11-17.. Most of all it will def. help 11's, 12v6 and ALL 16's..And Although, the effect is negligible it even helps with 12v2 and so on..

    Which leads me back on how to actually side count the ace for betting purposes..And Although the Ace should be adjusted by 3 each, i cant help but to think that you actually need to Adjust the by -4 for every extra Ace seen since the fact its counted as +1..

    IN the First Example, lets say theres one deck dealt from 2 decks and the RC is 0 with NO Aces played.. You should ADD +3 for each Ace your short right? Which of course would be 3x4=+12.

    In the Second Example, lets take the same example, but only this time ALL 8 Aces have been played..So wouldnt you have to subtract -4 for every extra(4x-4+4=12) Ace thats been played? Since the fact, the you Added +1 each for the four extra Aces? which in effect would result in all actuality of being -3 each (4x-4+4=-12)?
    Really. I’ll definitely have a better look later today. Right now, I’m having lunch with a very good looking lady. She’s been at my side for the last 43 years. It’s a beautiful day, and we are enjoying an outdoor patio at a 120 year old house restaurant combination. I have to put my iPad away now.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Eight Deck Multi-Deck Betting Strategy
    By Zaal in forum Software
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-02-2019, 05:37 PM
  2. CVData Deleting Multi-Depth Betting Strategy
    By MercySakesAlive in forum Software
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-04-2018, 06:41 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-10-2017, 07:36 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-26-2016, 08:12 AM
  5. Finding optimal depth bets for multi-playing strategies
    By seriousplayer in forum Software
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-14-2015, 02:37 PM

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.