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

[bjanalyst]

I looked at my Excel file and I did enter EoR for h12 v 6 H17, h10 v A h17 and h11 v A H17 so I am good to analyze FBM H17 game

Although EoR for H17 differ from S17 when dealer's up card (duc) is a 2, 3, 4, 5 in addition to a six and Ace, the difference in EoR between H17 and S17 when duc is a 2, 3, 4 or 5 is negligible. This is because getting a soft 17 with duc = 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a second order probability involving more than two cards. With and Ace or six all you need is one card to get soft 17, with duc = A you just need a six in the hole and with a duc = 6 \you just need an Ace in the hole then you have a soft 17 which must be hit under H17 rule.

With duc = 2, 3, 4 or 5 you would need three or more cards to get a soft 17 which the dealer would then hit under H17.

Here are some low probability three card combinations for the dealer to have soft 17 which dealer must then hit under H17 which would make it different from S17 and so would result in slightly different EoR.

if duc = 5 you would need an Ace in the hole followed by dealer hitting with another Ace to get soft 17 which dealer must then hit under H17.
if duc = 4 you would need an two in the hole followed by dealer hitting with an Ace to get soft 17 which dealer must then hit under H17.
if duc = 3 you would need a three in the hole followed by dealer hitting with an Ace to get soft 17 which dealer must then hit under H17.
if duc = 2 you would need a four in the hole followed by dealer hitting with an Ace to get soft 17 which dealer must then hit under H17.

These second order probabilities leading to a difference in S17 and H17 EoR when duc is a 2, 3, 4 or 5 are relatively insignificant.

And higher order probabilities where the dealer gets four or more cards to get soft 17 are even rarer.

In my Excel program I have included EoR for H17 only for duc of six or Ace.

I will use S17 EoR where duc is a 2, 3, 4 or 5 for the I18 and your FBM system.

The differences will be insignificant and will still show the relative power of your FBM system with the 16 of the I18 plays for H17.

I can also analyzed and optimize your FBM and side counts for the S17 game which I have all of the EoR for and compare it to HO2 w ASC and KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c for S17.

With CC comparisons I do not even need your indices.

All I need from you is the tag values of your primary FBM count and the tag vales of any side counts you use with the FBM and I can do my CC comparisons to HO2 w ASC and to KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c for the I18 minus splitting Tens.

[bjanalyst]

Don
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.

I am totally lost on what your system is and how it works.

Sort of like the Tarzan system that totally confused me.

All I know is that Gronbog's sims showed for the back count game, KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c slightly beat the vey complicated Tarzan count and if 45m79c were used instead of 5m7c the difference would be even greater. For play all Tarzan slightly beat KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c but I think that might be because I did not include many negative indices. So

KO with AA89mTc and 45m79c has BE of 99.6% and perfect insurance as you can see from the attached PDFs. And if you look at the summary of WACC, KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c has a WACC of over 90%.

Tarzan count uses four levels of complexity as you can see from the attached PDF as well as an ASC which I do not like because ASC are inaccurate and depend on an estimate of deck played.

So I KO w AA89mTc and 45m79s were slimed it would beat Tarzan by a wider margin for the back counted game and if I added negative indices would probably bet Tarzan for play all.

But Tarzan count ahs maxed out and there is nothing more you can do with the Tarzan count.

But KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c is not maxed out as I can add a 3rd side count which would be four levels of complexity, KO primary and three side counts, same as the four levels of complexity as the Tarzan count which cannot be improved any father.

So if I added Am8c or Am6c to KO with AA89mTc and 45m79c then I would leave Tarzan swinging from the trees.

You were talking about increasing BC, PE and IC.

Please look at attached PDFs and you will see how KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c fairs for BC, PE and IC.

I use KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c because the 5m9c helps with Super 4 and Lucky Ladies betting when used with the KO with AA89mTc and KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c is almost as powerful for blackjack as KO with AA9mTc and 45m79c and 5m9c is a simpler second side count to keep that 45m79c.

Bait if you are just considering regular blackjack without any side bets, KO w AA89mTC and 45m79c is the best system with only two side counts. And if you added a third side count, which I do not recommend, you can improve further as I mentioned above.

Attached is a PDF that shows' the BE of KO + (1/2)*(45m79c) at 99.6% for the H17, DAS, LS game that you play which just happens to be the BE for the S17 DAS, LS game as well. The EoR for betting H17, DAS, LS and S17 DAS, LS are different but are very slightly different.

I use KO + (1/2)*(5m9c) which as a BE of 98.6% for the S17, DAS, LS and 98.4% for H17, DAS, LS game.

It should also be noted that both systems include KO with AA89mTc and that Tc = Ten count = KO + AA89mTc gives a perfect Ten count with a perfect insurance decision. Insure if Tc = KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks with IC = 100%.

So there are three files I am attaching:

1. KO + 0.5x(45m79c) H17 DAS betting

2. KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c CC summary

3. KO + AA89mTc give perfect insurance

So that is what I am talking about and what your system is up against.

Your description is very nebulous and I cannot put my finger on your system.

Gronbog has my private email if you want to email your system just to me instead of to everyone on this website.

Again, all I really need is the tag value of your primacy FBM and tag values of your side counts. That is all that I need. I do not need any indices and I do not need anything else.

And I see you use ASC which is no problem Ace deficiency = Ap - 4*dp = (12/13)*(Ap) - (1/13)*(23456789Tp).

If you email me put in the subject "Freightman from Blackjack Forum" and you can also mention on this post that you emailed me your system.
KO + 0.5x(45m79c) H17 DAS betting.pdf
KO + AA89mTc give perfect insurance.pdf
KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c CC summary.pdf

[beating vegas]

Don you better put it in your next book or James Grosjean
Might put it in his next book.

[Freightman]

After a lovely country drive, lunch at an unknown delightful country diner, and an hour of picking fruit and vegetables at a berry farm, wife and I just got home. After I enjoy what looks to be an exquisitely large juicy and delicious peach, I may well (and then again I may not) provide that info which you so fervently desire.

Was I mistaken when you indicated this would be a piece of cake.

[seriousplayer]

I am totally lost on what your system is and how it works.

Sort of like the Tarzan system that totally confused me.

All I know is that Gronbog's sims showed for the back count game, KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c slightly beat the vey complicated Tarzan count and if 45m79c were used instead of 5m7c the difference would be even greater. For play all Tarzan slightly beat KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c but I think that might be because I did not include many negative indices. So

KO with AA89mTc and 45m79c has BE of 99.6% and perfect insurance as you can see from the attached PDFs. And if you look at the summary of WACC, KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c has a WACC of over 90%.

Didn't we said we don't care??

[Freightman]

Okay, I’ll bite, I’ll comment in roughly the same order that you have inquired. First, that peach was so juicy, you wouldn’t believe it.

I’m not surprised that my system stumped you, and I didn’t even remark on the complicated stuff.

-I don’t give a shit about a back counted game. Don’t bother evaluating. Evaluate as play all. Shit for Cookies can’t see the forest for the trees

- include all negative indices based on Wongs Professional Blackjack, Halves section and close enough. Positive indices are a combination of EV maximizing and risk averse. More about this later

-you may think that ASC loses accuracy, and by extension true counts, but I live by them. Seems to me I’ve made a shit load of dough, and this is not my livelihood, but then again, what do I know

-Doubt that you would beat Tarzans game. The question is whether the Tarzan complexity is worth it against (I think Gronbog and Schlesinger collaboration - they can confirm) HiOpt2 with ASC and possibly 7 side count. For that matter, would it beat FBM ASC Advanced (Halves on steroids). I question whether I would reveal the secrets of FBM Advanced (maybe some of them) if you are unable to solve the complexities of FBM Basic

- I talked about increasing PE and IC. BC is already +99%. Those topics as to how have already been covered

- No need for me to examine your PDFs. Don’t think I’ve looked at one yet. No need to change a winning formula

- Don’t sim side bets. A couple of them are quite countable. Further, specialized counts are available to exploit this. However, less than best results can be obtained correlating to the main count which produces positive expectation - no additional work

- I use the following risk averse plays, not necessarily for RA purposes. 99v7, 10v10, 8v6, 8v5, 9v2. I will also revert to as low as EV max with ace surplus. Most everything else is EV max. Certain cover plays are excercised at lower ramps, but not upper ramps. Some Exceptions made based on below.

- Ask yourself - what is quality of true count. This is where you really miss the boat. Are you capable of simming a dual ramp betting scheme. Do you know what that is. If you know what that is, what predicates the movement between upper and lower ramps in the same shoe. Besides the obvious, what are the benefits

- other exceptions. You can’t sim my game. Hell, I can’t sim my game totally - have to improvise. Made that comment to Doghand once, and he’s the best there is at this stuff.

- to my loyal naysayers - you dumb fucks - do you have a clue what’s going on here, other than the obvious. Anyone else, ask away

Oh, forgot tag values
2 ,7 +.5
3,4,6 +1.0
5, +1.5
8, 0
9, -.5
10,J,Q,K,A, -1

One last comment. I’ve survived a long time. I can’t hide looking like a counter. I can hide looking like a good and even great counter. It’s cumulative that (unless I’ve done something dumb) gets me

[bjanalyst]

-Doubt that you would beat Tarzans game. The question is whether the Tarzan complexity is worth it against (I think Gronbog and Schlesinger collaboration - they can confirm) HiOpt2 with ASC and possibly 7 side count. For that matter, would it beat FBM ASC Advanced (Halves on steroids). I question whether I would reveal the secrets of FBM Advanced (maybe some of them) if you are unable to solve the complexities of FBM Basic

I cannot follow your system. It is not well defined. So I will drop any attempt to evaluate it. Both your system and Tarzan's system are very complicated and I cannot follow them so I give up.

But I would like to address your quote above where you said that you doubt my system would beat Tarzan.

You mentioned you did not look at my PDFs. If you did you would have seen the sims I included which show my system beat Tarzan and would not have made that statement.

So I am including the sim results as a four page PDF attached.

Please look at this four page PDF with sims results so you can no longer say you doubt my system would beat Tarzan. It did!!

This PDF has four pages.

1. Page 1 are sim results for the No LS game for HO2 w ASC, Tarzan and KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c.
Note that KO+ beat Tarzan for back counted games but Tarzan beat KO+ for play all. I did not include many negative indices in KO+. If I did then KO+ would have performed better in negative counts against Tarzan. Both count systems handily beat HO2 w ASC.

2. Page 2 shows KO+ sims verses HO2 w ASC for No LS.

3. Page 3 shows KO+ sims verses HO2 w ASC for LS.
I did not see any sim results for the Tarzan count for the LS game. If you have Tarzan's sims results for LS it would be interesting to see how it stacks up against my KO+ system shown here.

4. Page 4 shows CC that show that KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c which I will call KO++ is more powerful than KO+ where I used 5m7c.
If I used the system with 45m79c instead of 5m7c and included more negative indices as well this system would have definitely beaten the best Tarzan system by an even wider margin.

But Tarzan is very complicated with four levels of complexity and mine is not.

For example with Tarzan I saw this explanation:

Tarzan Count explained:
Think of 4 columns in your mind.
Column 1 = 2s-5s (+1 to this column each time one of these cards come out) Column 2 = 6-9s (+1 to this column each time one of these cards come out) Column 3 = 10s (+1 to this column each time one of these cards come out) Column 4 (more of a side count) = Aces
For your first 3 columns you subtract the lowest of the 3 counts from all counts (excluding the Ace side count). So a "4 8 10" becomes "0 4 6.

So the Tarzan system has four levels of complexity whereas KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c or the better count KO w AA89mTc and 45m97c has only three levels of complexity, the KO primary count and two side counts.

So these KO+ and KO++ counts beat the very complex Tarzan count.

So please look at the attached PDF so you will no longer have any doubts that the KO+ and KO++ systems do beat Tarzan.

At this point, will drop any attempt to analyze your system. For me your system is not well defined so I cannot analyze it.

Good luck with your system and over and out on any attempts on my part to analyze your system.
Sims against Tarzan.pdf

[bjanalyst]

Didn't we said we don't care??

First, speak for yourself, not others. Say "I do not care", do not say "we do not care"

You can relax now. I have given up trying to analyze the FBM system.

It is way too complicated for me to analyze and I do not understand it, just like I did not understand how Tarzan count worked.

I am writing in the smallest font 1 which fits your character. Small font for a small minded person.

[Freightman]

I cannot follow your system. It is not well defined. So I will drop any attempt to evaluate it. Both your system and Tarzan's system are very complicated and I cannot follow them so I give up.

But I would like to address your quote above where you said that you doubt my system would beat Tarzan.

You mentioned you did not look at my PDFs. If you did you would have seen the sims I included which show my system beat Tarzan and would not have made that statement.

So I am including the sim results as a four page PDF attached.

Please look at this four page PDF with sims results so you can no longer say you doubt my system would beat Tarzan. It did!!

This PDF has four pages.

1. Page 1 are sim results for the No LS game for HO2 w ASC, Tarzan and KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c.
Note that KO+ beat Tarzan for back counted games but Tarzan beat KO+ for play all. I did not include many negative indices in KO+. If I did then KO+ would have performed better in negative counts against Tarzan. Both count systems handily beat HO2 w ASC.

2. Page 2 shows KO+ sims verses HO2 w ASC for No LS.

3. Page 3 shows KO+ sims verses HO2 w ASC for LS.
I did not see any sim results for the Tarzan count for the LS game. If you have Tarzan's sims results for LS it would be interesting to see how it stacks up against my KO+ system shown here.

4. Page 4 shows CC that show that KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c which I will call KO++ is more powerful than KO+ where I used 5m7c.
If I used the system with 45m79c instead of 5m7c and included more negative indices as well this system would have definitely beaten the best Tarzan system by an even wider margin.

But Tarzan is very complicated with four levels of complexity and mine is not.

For example with Tarzan I saw this explanation:

Tarzan Count explained:
Think of 4 columns in your mind.
Column 1 = 2s-5s (+1 to this column each time one of these cards come out) Column 2 = 6-9s (+1 to this column each time one of these cards come out) Column 3 = 10s (+1 to this column each time one of these cards come out) Column 4 (more of a side count) = Aces
For your first 3 columns you subtract the lowest of the 3 counts from all counts (excluding the Ace side count). So a "4 8 10" becomes "0 4 6.

So the Tarzan system has four levels of complexity whereas KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c or the better count KO w AA89mTc and 45m97c has only three levels of complexity, the KO primary count and two side counts.

So these KO+ and KO++ counts beat the very complex Tarzan count.

So please look at the attached PDF so you will no longer have any doubts that the KO+ and KO++ systems do beat Tarzan.

At this point, will drop any attempt to analyze your system. For me your system is not well defined so I cannot analyze it.

Good luck with your system and over and out on any attempts on my part to analyze your system.
Sims against Tarzan.pdf

You missed the best part. Regardless, the magic word is “judgement”. I revel in what appears to some as inconsistency.

[seriousplayer]

First, speak for yourself, not others. Say "I do not care", do not say "we do not care"

You can relax now. I have given up trying to analyze the FBM system.

It is way too complicated for me to analyze and I do not understand it, just like I did not understand how Tarzan count worked.

I am writing in the smallest font 1 which fits your character. Small font for a small minded person.

LMAO! Speaking for 21forme, also. He also said no one cares. So that includes we. It's accurate! WE DON'T CARE!!!

[bjanalyst]

You missed the best part. Regardless, the magic word is “judgement”. I revel in what appears to some as inconsistency.

I cannot evaluate judgment. So good luck with your FBM system and thanks for sharing what you did.

[bjanalyst]

LMAO! Speaking for 21forme, also. He also said no one cares. So that includes we. It's accurate! WE DON'T CARE!!!

Right, two small minded people so you both get font size 1 replies. And there were other replies where they showed interest.
But I cannot evaluate FBM system which uses judgment so I guess you are now very happy.

[bjanalyst]

You missed the best part. Regardless, the magic word is “judgement”. I revel in what appears to some as inconsistency.

One more point. If you look closely at the four page PDF in the previous post for the no LS game I used you will see page 1 saying

KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b sim 8 verses Tarzan Expert+KC=0.10 which is he very best Tarzan count.

If you look at page 3 of that PDF, the LS sim, which I only had results for KO+ for and did not have Tarzan LS to compare tp, you will see

KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b sim 9

In sim 9, I added a bunch of negative indices. So for the LS game I included a bunch of negative indices but did not include many negative indices in sim 8 which was the no LS game which was compared against Tarzan.

So that is why Tarzan won the play all game. When I exclude negative indices, the sims just used basic strategy for those plays in very negative counts. So there were stands and doubles and splits in very negative counts because of lack of these negative indices.

So this explains why Tarzan beat KO+ for play all. If I had included these negative indices, KO+ would have most likely beaten Tarzan for the play all game also.

That is if KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b sim 9 were used for the LS game sim the results would have more likely been KO+ beating Tarzan even for the play all game.

And if I used KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c the difference would have been even greater. That KO++ system with 45m79c would have beaten the very best Tarzan count, Tarzan Expert+KC=0.10 by an even wider margin.