0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
seriousplayer
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.
Originally Posted by
seriousplayer
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.
Bookmarks