I would like to get details on FBM system so I can run Correlation Coefficients on it

[Freightman]

Don
I’m sorry for spilling the beans with regards to our collaboration on BJA4. I was considering hiring an individual as
Manager of Digital Expression. This important position would have responsibility for branding the FBM ASC - spreading the word in proper hand to testicle expression. Further, accessories deigned for the ladies (inflatable balls) in a myriad of bright and attractive colours. Also, clothing specially designed to enhance the FBM experience are being evaluated for the promotion portion of your book. I look forward to the needed profits in this COVID age. Ball scent strategies are still being evaluated.

I’m also considering personally modelling to promote the how to section, championing - The Balls that made it Happen.

BJAAnalyst
FBM ASC is not a count system. Rather it is an add on (strap on, so to speak) designed to add PE to ace reckoned systems. First, strategies are adjusted to my personal benefit, incorporating those rule sets applicable to my standard game. Please evaluate based on H17, DA2, DAS, RSA, ES10. Incorporate I18 and FAB4. You can leave out splitting 10’s, as it is simply too revealing. Please also incorporate all indices from -16 to Plus 16. These are pretty much the extremes of my play. Of course, my preferred count - Halves - is the system of choice. Now, the first area where you will have difficulty is working into the evaluation, a 2 tiered betting system, adjusted to deck pen and various cover plays utilized in the lower betting ramps, yet maximized for house tolerance. Now, for the most difficult area, which I may reveal to you upon your confirmation of ability to evaluate the foregoing, that secret missing from your 42,612 individually counted illustrations, which will be briefly examined below.

Now, add on ASC for Playing Efficiency. You may use standard approaches to ASC Playing efficiency. Consider effect on maximization of ace sensitive plays. You now have information required to evaluate FBM Basic.you now have a system with superior BC, PE and IC.

Provided you complete FBM Basic, as intimated above, I advise now that you lack clarity in your 42,612 illustrations, information dedicated to evaluation of True Count. and I will reveal its secrets.

[bjanalyst]

You have to understand Freightman FBM might not be a level 1 count or the side count might not be use apply to a level 1 count system. Keyword: FBM advanced system. That tells automatically its a higher level count. I don't think you understand the problem to your count system. You are using a level 1 count and a level 1 secondary count and trying to get it to perform at the same level of Hi-OPT II with ASC. It's possible to be done but you will need to be more creative than your HL with 7m9c.

You have to understand Freightman FBM might not be a level 1 count or the side count might not be use apply to a level 1 count system. Keyword: FBM advanced system. That tells automatically its a higher level count. I don't think you understand the problem to your count system. You are using a level 1 count and a level 1 secondary count and trying to get it to perform at the same level of Hi-OPT II with ASC. It's possible to be done but you will need to be more creative than your HL with 7m9c.

HL w 7m9c was NEVER intended to be a recommended count system. I chose the 7m9c with the HL for the HL player who refused to switch to the KO count. The HL w 7m9c was just an experiment for the stubborn HL player who refuses to switch to the KO count.

For the shoe game I recommend KO, but for the two deck game I recommend a balanced count since the two deck game is a play all game and the true counts swing widely and would fall outside the table of critical running counts often. So for the two deck game I would use HL2 with Am6c where HL = High low but the 2's and 7's are counted as (1/2). The Am6c is exact unlike the ASC which is approximate. And the CC of HL2 w Am6c are equivalent to the CC of HO2 w ASC so the HL w ASC is just as powerful as HO2 w ASC> Another benefit is that the HL2 w Am6c can still use many of the HL indices so an entire new set of indices does not need to be learned as they would need to be for using HO2 w ASC. Finally only the 2 and 7 in Hl2 with Am6c have values other than plus or minus 1 whereas HO2 has different abusable tag valises for four rans, the 2, 3, 6 and 7 as +1 with 4, 5 +2 and Tens -2. The HO2 is a much more difficult count to keep and new indices need to be learned and the ASC is approximate. If you do not want to use HL2 with Am6c then you can just use HL w Am6c for a loss in playing and betting efficiency but still a big improvement over the stand alone HL.

But now back to the shoe game where I strongly recommend switching form the HL to the KO for the primacy count.

My recommended count systems that easily beats the HO2 w ASC using only two side counts are any of these three systems:
1. KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c.
2. KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c
3. KO with AA89mTc and 45m79c.

They are all very close to each other with count #3 being the most powerful but also the most difficult as the 45m79c side count recognized four ranks.

The game I paly is six deck , five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS, Lucky Ladies and Super 4.

So I use KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c since the 5m9c helps with both the Lucky Ladies and Super 4 bets.

For example, bet Super 4 if S4c = Super 4 counts = KO - (AA89mTc + 5m9c) >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks.

I will not go into details here on any of these derivations and calculations but they will be included in a series of books that I will be self publishing before the end of the year. I got rid of Xlibris as hey never paid me any royalties and I am revamping and improving all of my books.

See how simple this rule is for the unbalanced count so no need to estimate decks remaining. This S4c has a Super 4 CC = 85%. THe HL has a S4cc = 61%. Big difference. But I will not go into details on this count or derivation here.

The bottom line is by using various linear combinations of the primary count and side counts you are able to get derived counts that are better for playing strategy changes and for side bets by, for example, finding the values of k1 and k2 in KO + k1*(5m9c) + k2(AA89mTc) that maximize the CC between the tag value of the derived count and the EoR for any given situation. Then once k1 and k2 are determined the LSL technique is used to calculate the index. I use Excel Solver to find the optimal values of "k1" and "k2" and then I select usually integer values of "k1" and "k2" that are easy to remember and they have negligible effect on reducing the CC for the optimal values of "k1" and "k2".

My Excel program that I created can handle any primary count, either balanced or unbalanced, and any level of primary count and up to four side counts which I recommend would as plus/minus side counts.

So I will have absolutely no problem in calculating the I18 CC for the FBM system. It does not matter what level the FBM system is. And if an Ace side count is used no problem either. Adef = Ace Deficiency = Ap - 4*dp = (12/13)*(Ap) - (1/13)*(23456789Tp).

Please note that this Excel program is the program I used to derive all of my count systems of which Gronbog has done over 20 simulations on and every time the CC increased, the SCORE increased. So my Excel program is correct.

i can handle the FBM count, not problem.

An in less that 30 minutes, if I have the I18 for the FBM and and side counts, I can calculate the CC which have been shown over and over again to give correct results in sync with the results of simulations.

So basically my Excel program can handle any level count system you can throw at me, balance or unbalanced, and any side count, either plus/minus side count or side count of individual cards.

I would like to thank ETFAN who works for Arnold Snyder who helped me when I developed my LSL program and taught me many consents. He also verified my Excel program I created as as being accurate and now with a few dozen simulations results based on output form that Excel program you can see that the program is correct. ETFAN also explained to me Peter Griffins proportional deflection (PD) technique to calculated indices which I also programmed into my Excel program and the result o the LSL technique and PD technique resulted in identical indices being produced every single time.

In addition my playing strategy variations with side counts make logical sense as well.

So basically my Excel program has passed every single test thrown at it with flying colors for the last ten years. My Excel program is correct and produces accurate results.

And I will use that Excel program to calculate the CC of the I18 for the FBM system without any problem whatsoever.

[Freightman]

BJAnalyst
I failed to further advise the strategies designed in when and how to shift between upper and lower ramp. Simply use a rotating system for same. The true power Forms part of FBM ASC advanced, when one has mastered evaluation of true count.

[bjanalyst]

BJAnalyst
I failed to further advise the strategies designed in when and how to shift between upper and lower ramp. Simply use a rotating system for same. The true power Forms part of FBM ASC advanced, when one has mastered evaluation of true count.

The game I play is six decks, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS, Super 4 and Lucky Ladies offered.

And the LL and Super 4 bets add to my advantage and winnings since the 5m9c with the KO and AA89mTc helps with both of these side bets.

In Pennsylvania the law states that all casinos must offer Late Surrender and dealer stands on Soft 17. So that is the only game I analyzed and you should be avoiding the H17 game in favor of the S17 game anyhow..

But the game you play is H17 and ES10 (early surrender against Dealers up card of 10 I assume) and the I18 does not take into account any side bets anyhow or surrender. I will skip the Fab 4 surrender analysis since I do not have ES10 EoR. I guess ES10 advantage makes up for H17 disadvantage. The game you play is very strange indeed.

One more point, the CC or simulations only show power as if each system was played perfectly by computer. The CC or sims do not take into account accuracy or ease of use. For humans you need to consider accuracy and ease of use.

Accuracy refers to accuracy of the true count and any side counts.

I believe your FBM is balanced with a pivot of a true count of zero as compared to the KO with a pivot of a true count of 4. The KO gives more accurate true counts at 3, 4, 5, and 6 than a balanced count system does and that is where the accuracy of your true counts are most important for both betting and playing strategy changes.

Also I believe you use an ASC which is also inaccurate since it depends on an estimate of decks played whereas plus/minus side counts are exact.

So already your FBM system losses on accuracy of important true counts of 3, 4, 5 and 6 and on accuracy of the Ace side count.

Now consider ease of use. The FBM is probably a level 2 count which is much more difficult to keep than the level one primacy KO count. Also if you are using an ASC that is also much more difficult to keep than a plus/minus count and as mentioned above ASC it less accurate than plus/minus count which are exact and do not depend on decks played.

So I believe your FBM system loses on accuracy and ease of use.

For power I will concentrate on the CC for the I18 less splitting Tens. I will ignore surrender and the Fab 4 since I do not have EoR for ES10.

So I just want the FBM system for the sixteen plays which are the I18 less splitting Tens. And if you can give me S17 for the FBM for these sixteen plays then great, and if not, then just give me H17 that you have.

I think I included some H17 EoR in my Excel program so I may be able to calculate CC for the H17 game if that is all you have and the only real differences between H17 and S17 indices occur when the dealer's up card is a six or Ace anyhow. I can use S17 EoR for all other situations without much loss in accuracy.

I will be skipping analysis of surrender since the game you play is ES10 which I do not have the EoR for.

The FBM CC of these 16 plays when compared to the CC of HO2 w ASC and CC of KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c for these same plays will give a very good indication of where the power of your system stands.

If you give me FBM for H17 then I believe I do have EoR for the I18 hard 10 v A double, hard 11 v A double and hit/stand hard 12 v 6 which I can then use to calculated CC for the FBM system and CC for HO2 w ASC and CC for KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c. I can use S17 EoR for the other 13 I18 (excludes splitting Tens and the three I18 with dealer's up card of Ace or six) that I will be analyzing since if the dealer's up card is not a six of Ace the difference between H17 and S17 EoR are negligible.

Just let me know if you are giving me these 16 FBM I18 for H17 or S17 game.

[beating vegas]

This is great!

[Freightman]

This is great!

Please advise in Excruciating fine detail why.

[Freightman]

You have to understand Freightman FBM might not be a level 1 count or the side count might not be use apply to a level 1 count system. Keyword: FBM advanced system. That tells automatically its a higher level count. I don't think you understand the problem to your count system. You are using a level 1 count and a level 1 secondary count and trying to get it to perform at the same level of Hi-OPT II with ASC. It's possible to be done but you will need to be more creative than your HL with 7m9c.

You’re on the right track, soldier. FBM ASC is designed to be played with an ace reckoned system. To be clear, FBM Basic is limited to an ASC. FBM advanced incorporates all that FBM Basic has to offer, plus evaluation of true count. Evaluation of true count is designed to work 8n concert with my preferred dual ramp betting system, to assist me on which betting ramp to be in.

FBM Basic ir Advanced May be used with either Hi Lo, Halves, or any other ace reckoned system. Of course, I prefer Halves.

Speaking of soldier

https://youtu.be/YJhaDvmRRWM

[21forme]

Is there anything that will stop your verbal diarrhea? Read my lips: NO ONE CARES!

Don

I agree. Not only are his posts absurdly long, but now he is supersizing and bolding the font, too. How annoying!
P.S. No one cares.

[bjanalyst]

I agree. Not only are his posts absurdly long, but now he is supersizing and bolding the font, too. How annoying P.S. No one cares.

Excuse me,

I had two sentences in font 4 that I wanted to emphasize, not to be annoying. The rest of my reply was font 2 or 3 which I find easier to read,.

You used font 7 for your entire annoying and sarcastic reply.

It is you who are annoying!.

Also I bolded two words in a two previous posts that I wanted to emphasize. That is the purpose of bolding or using larger font. I use them sparingly to highlight points I want to make. I do not use if for my entire post like you imply and which you did!.

Also, I never used font 7 like you did.

And stop saying no one cares. Say you do not care. It is very obnoxious and abusive to speak for others. Speak for yourself only.

The FBM system is about to be published.

Before you publish a systems it is a good idea to evaluate it.

I have made this reply font 1 so you need to squint to see it since that is what you deserve for your sarcastic and insulting post.

I am also making this post font 1 to match the size of your small pea brain, and that is all that you and your reply deserve, font 1.

Any any response to my reply here in other than font 1 would show you are the one who is being annoying and supercilious with your nonsense insulting posts,

Using other than font 1 will show that you are to emphasize you are correct and a big person by using bigger fonts.

You are a small person so use a small size 1 font, and that is all that you are!.

So if you reply then have the courtesy to use font 1 to your insignificant reply. A response to my reply in other than font 1 shows that you are the one being abusive.

Font 1 is needed for you and your response to show everyone how small you and your comments really are and that your words really mean nothing and are insignificant.

[Freightman]

Excuse me,

I had two sentences in font 4 that I wanted to emphasize, not to be annoying. The rest of my reply was font 2 or 3 which I find easier to read,.

You used font 7 for your entire annoying and sarcastic reply.

It is you who are annoying!.

Also I bolded two words in a two previ0os posts that I wanted to emphasize. That is the purpose of bolding or using larger font. I use them sparingly to highlight points I want to make. I do not use if for my entire post like you imply and which you did!.

I never used font 7 like you did and I never said

And stop saying no one cares. Say you do not care.

The FBM system is about to be published.

Before you publish a systems it is a good idea to evaluate it.

I have made this reply font 1 so you need to squint to see it since that is what you deserve for your sarcastic and insulting post.

I am also making this post font 1 because to match the size of your small mind, and that is all that you deserve.

21firme
Did you really use Font 7. Shame. 50 lashes with wet noodle for you.

[21forme]

I'm done with this thread. It's now on ignore. Freightman, you and Mr. Asperger can continue pleasuring each other.

[Freightman]

I'm done with this thread. It's now on ignore. Freightman, you and Mr. Asperger can continue pleasuring each other.

Geez
Only another 996 posts to go for entertainment value

[bjanalyst]

I'm done with this thread. It's now on ignore. Freightman, you and Mr. Asperger can continue pleasuring each other.

I asked you to reply with font 1 to reflect the importance of your posts. Apparently\you have a big head and ego and think your posts are important by replying with a larger font. You do not fool anyone.

Small fonts are made for small minds like yours.