Criterion.Originally Posted by Freightman
Don
Lightning fast dealer - Hands per hour
We need speed, demon speed, speed is what we need, greasy fast speed
https://youtu.be/eRWVAmQ7Mqc
Norm - To add this HL + 5m9 count to CVdata, I add it into Side count option and then create the table just for the effected playing deviations? This will then override the main tables for those decision? All other playing deviations then default to the main strategy?
For betting, it looks like on the betting tab, I can add a betting side count, then since the formula is 1/2 * 5m9c i will just add 0.5 for 5's and -0.5 for 9's?
is this right? i'd like to test this and other strategies so its a good practice.
Gronbog never did any sims for HL w 5m9c. He did many other sims for me and each one proved that CC work.
I believe Gronbog has his own sim programs. I am not sure what Gronbog uses. You would have to ask him or maybe Norman would know.
So I used my same Excel program that I used for all the other Gronbog sims to get what the results of HL w 5m9c would be.
What I said is that my CC method has been proven over and over again to be correct and it complements and can even be used in place of sims.
If you feel you want to run sims to prove that I am correct again with my HL w 5m9c then go ahead.
My prediction is using 5m9c with HL is better than using ASC with HL. As I have shown, both have approximately the same increase in playing efficiency. I showed some shared playing strategy changes with ASC and 5m9c with the HL that were about equal. Then I showed 5m9c helps with every late surrender decision that ASC does not but ASC helps with plays like insurance and hard 12 v 6 and doubling hard 10 v T and hard 11 v A that 5m9c does not. So my assessment is that for PE improvement to HL, they are probably approximately equal But as I also pointed out, 5m9c helps with BE whereas ASC does. And 5m9c is a much easier side count to keep as opposed to ASC and is EXACT whereas the ASC is APPROXIMATE.
And I also stated my conclusion that HL w 5m9c will perform approximately the same as Wong's Halves. It is slightly below the BE for Wongs Halves but had a better PE than Wong's Halves so my prediction is a toss up and the HL w 5m9c and Wong's Halves should perform about equally and have about the same SCORE..
So these are my predictions from my CC.
1. The SCORE of HL w 5m9c will surpass the SCORE of HL w ASC.
2. The SCORE of HL w 5m9c and Wong's Halve will be approximately equal and if I had to guess I think HL w 5m9c may actually slightly outperform Wong's Halves.
So again these are my predictions based on my CC method. They have not been verified by sims. However, my CC has been proven to be correct by sims in many past analysis with sims. SO I have no reason to believe I am wrong this time.
With that being said, I suggest the 5m9c with the HL for the HL player who will never consider switching to any other system. And simple 5m9c side count adds power to the HL with very little extra work.
But the HL is not a good primary count if you want to maximize power. I tried many difference combinations with the HL. I got improvement with the HL such as includin g5m9c wihit the HL as I suggested above but I coudl not get a great system with maximum power using the HL as a bse count.
To maximize power you need KO as a base count. And the three KO systems, using two side counts, that proeduce the best results are.
1. KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c.
2. KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c.
3. KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c.
These count systems will produce the best results and they all beat the pants off of the HO2 w ASC.
I personally use KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c because the 5m9c helps with Lucky Ladies and Super 4 side bets which are offered at the casino I go to.
The game I play is S17, DAS, LS, Super 4 and Lucky Ladies, six decks, five decks dealt.
But all three count systems will perform exceptionally well with KO w AA89mTc and 45m79c being the strongest for regular blackjack with no side counts.
But back to the HL player who wants a very simple side count to improve HL for regular blackjack. The player is happy with some improvement to HL with a minimal amount of work and is not interested in beating the HO2 w ASC. The simplest side count to use for this is 5m9c to use with HL.
I do not want to bother Gronbog with simulations but if someone else wants to run sims to prove the power of HL w 5m9c then be my quest.
Just make these changes to HL in your sim program and use HL for everything else.
1. brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(5m9c)
2. Use HL + 5m9c with HL indices for these strategy changes. hard 16 v 8, 9, T, hard 15 v T, double hard 9 v 7 and EVERY late surrender decision.
3. For hard 16 v 7, stand if tc(HL) >= 4 and 5m9c >= 2*dr
So that is it, Get a canned HL program and make changed 1, 2 and 3 above and keep HL for everything else. Run the program and let me know what haperens.
I would be interested in the results and your sims and how they correspond to my predictions.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 08-09-2020 at 05:08 PM.
I am attaching the following PDFs if you want to do sims.
So you have a choice of doing sims on the simplified HL w 5m9c or the HL w 5m9c full indices.
The full indices will increase the SCORE of the simplified indices only marginally and probably not worth the effort to learn but I have included it here to be complete as I am extremely thorough in my analysis.
You can do sims if you want but I already told you the answer.
I have been correct every single time in my prediction using the LSL technique and if your sims do not agree with me then look for an error in your sim program. That is what happened with Gronbog in the sims of HL w 7m9c. His initial sims SCORE decreased then I told him to look for errors with some suggestions of testing each situation individually to find out which situation decreased the SCORE and he then found his coding error.
So I am sure I am correct again in my HL w 5m9c this time.
But I have no problem with independent verification.
Feel free to do sims on my HL w 5m9c but I already told you the results.
1. HL w 5m9c will beat HL w ASC
2. HL w 5m9c will tie Wong's Halves. It will be awfully close to Wong's Halves so I will not predict a winner.
3, HL w 5m9c will NOT beat HO2 w ASC or come even close. It will perhaps close the gap between the SCORE of HL and HO2 w ASC by 50% which is not bad for a simple 5m9c adjustment to the HL count.
My suggestion is just to do the simplified HL w 5m9c indices simulation which is the first PDF listed below. Using the complete indices is very complicated and will require much more work on your part with very little gain and players will not use it. So just think of the full indices I listed below as theoretical interest only.
Perhaps the only addition that players would use would be the stand alone 5m9c changes not in the simplified chart which are easy to remember.
The 5m9c stand alone changes not included in the original simplified HL w 5m9c chart are:
1. Split 2,2 v 8 DAS if 5m9c >= dr
2. Split 6,6 v 7 DAS if 5m9c <= (-2)*dr - that was the infinite deck case, for six or eight decks split 6,6 v 7 DAS if 5m9c <= (-1)*dr
3. Split 7,7 v 8 DAS if 5m9c >= dr
There three changes are easy to remember and can be used but they will have very little impact on your win rate so can be ignored.
But I would like to explain these strategy changes from a logical point of view. There strategy changes make logical sense as well which adds additional comfort that they are correct.
So let's consider them individually.
1. Splitting 2,2 v 8 DAS if 5m9c >= dr.
If 5m9c is positive then more 5's than 9's come out of the shoe so there is a deficiency of 5's and an excess of 9's. This means that if 2,2 is hit there is less chance of hitting with a 5 to give a total of 9 and a greater chance of hitting with a 9 for a total of a stiff 13. However, if split, there are excess nines so there is a greater chance of picking up one of these excess nine with a split two giving a total of 11 that can then be doubled. Also if the dealer's hole card is one of these excess nines the dealer will have a weak pat hand of 17. Thus the larger 5m9c is the more advantageous splitting 2,2 v 8 DAS is.
2. Splitting 6,6 v 7 DAS if 5m9c <= (-2)*dr or for six and eight decks split if 5m9c <= (-1)*dr
If 5m9c is negative then more 9's than 5's came out of the shoe so there is a a deficiency of 9's and an excess of 5. That means if 6,6 is hit is is less likely to pick up a 9 for a perfect 21 and more likely to pick up a 5 for a very weak pat 17. However, if split, and one of the sixes is hit with one of these excess 5 then the player will have a total of 11 which he can then double. Thus the more negative 5m9c is the more advantageous splitting 6,6 v 7 DAS is.
3. Splitting 7,7 v 8 DAS if 5m9c >= dr
If 5m9c is positive then there is a deficiency of 5's and an excess of 9's left in the shoe. This means that if player hits his 7,7 he is less likely to hit with a 5 to give his 7,7 a total of 19 (which is just enough the beat the dealer's probable 18 if the dealer's hole cared is a Ten) and more likely to hit with a 9 and bust which makes hitting 7,7 v 8 less attractive. Also if dealer's hole care is one of these excess nines then the dealer will have a weak 17 pat hand. Of course, if player splits his 7's and hits with one of these excess 9's he will have a total of 16 which is not very good but much better than busting if he hit is 7,7 with a 9 as the player still has a shot of winning.
So I explained the logic in these three stand alone 5m9c situations to hopefully give you confidence in the results of the HL w 5m9c and that they make logical sense and so are easier to remember when you can logically think them out. I hope that this helps.
But back to the simplified HL w 5m9c.
Just sticking to my original simplified HL w 5m9c is good enough.
If you want to add the 5m9c stand-alone side counts go ahead as they are easy to remember but do not expect a big gain from adding these infrequent stand alone 5m9c changes. But since they are easy to remember and if they go come up while the player is playing and since he is keeping the 5m9c anyhow, might as well use them.
But it should also be noted that these stand alone 5m9c plays are all DAS and DAS add variance to the player's bankroll. But if on a team with a big bankroll and a capped maximum bet that is a very small percentage of the total bankroll, then these DAS plays do increase expected value and so probably should be played.
Note the huge AACpTCp (Average Advantage Change per True count point) of these plays which is around 2% or 3%. If player is risk averse, then increase these 5m9c indices by one true count point each so that when DAS is done the player's has an advantage of at least 2% on these plays.
Thus risk averse plays are:
Split 2,2 v 8 DAS if 5m9c >= 2*dr
Split 6,6 v 7 DAS if 5m9c <= (-2)*dr
Split 7,7 v 8 DAS if 5m9c >= 2*dr
Do not bother to add any of the other insignificant 5m9c adjustments. They are of theoretical interest only.
And here are the attached PDFs. They are multiple page PDFs so please look at all of the pages.
01 HL w 5m9c simplified indices
02 HL w 5m9c complete indices
03 HL w 5m9c complete indices chart
04 5m9c stand alone
01 HL w 5m9c simplified indices.pdf
02 HL w 5m9c complete indices.pdf
03 HL w 5m9c complete indices chart.pdf
04 5m9c stand alone.pdf
Last edited by bjanalyst; 08-09-2020 at 10:49 PM.
OK. Here is the story.
When I was originally deciding on the most powerful blackjack count system I had two goals.
The first was to increase BE the most using KO was the base count. That lead me to using 45m79c count as my first side count.
So KO + (1/2)*(45m79c) has for the S17, DAS, LS game a BCC of 99.6%.
My second goal was to increase PE of KO the most. The most important playing strategy play is insurance. So my question was what side count when added to KO increase insurance the most. The answer is AA89mTc which when added to KO gives perfect insurance.
So that is how I came up with 45m79c and AA89mTc as the best side counts to the KO. I have simplified 45m79c with 5m7c or 5m9c which give almost the same results but are easier to keep as only two ranks are recognized in each of these counts, 5m7c and 5m9c, instead of the four ranks that need to be kept track of in 45m79c. So I gave up a little performance for simplicity and ease of use. Any of these three count systems of 5m9c or 5m7c or 45m79c added to the KO with AA89mTc are excellent blackjack count systems.
So I will attach a file called KO + AA89mTc to this post which shows all of this very clearly.
But I thought you were concerned with simulations of HL w 5m9c for players who want to keep the HL count and refuse to switch to any other count.
Gronbog already simulated KO w AA89mTC and 5m7c and showed it beat the pants off of the HO2 w ASC.
I am correct again with HL w 5m9c as I have been every other time. No one has yet to show me any errors in any of my calculations and have been posting now for almost two years with zero errors. When there was a discrepancy, it was others who were incorrect.
So go ahead and do sims to verify my HL w 5m9c results. I already gave you the answer but do sims if that makes you feel better.
Blackjack teams use the HL so they are really only concerned with an extremely simple improvement to the HL which is 5m9c.
They will not be using KO and they certainly will not be using AA89mTc but since you wanted to know about these counts I have included them here.
So attached to answer your question is:
KO with AA89mTc
KO with AA89mTc.pdf
Last edited by bjanalyst; 08-09-2020 at 10:01 PM.
Attached is an exercise in blackjack logic for why the HL CC for surrendering beat KO CC for surrendering for hard 15 and hard 16 but that KO CC for surrender beat the HL CC for surrender for hard 13 and hard 14. Please read attached one page PDF.
As a blackjack player you need to be able to logically think whatever plays that you are told to learn. They better make logical sense. if not, something is probably wrong.
Also by logically thinking out plays the strategy changes are easier to remember.
So please review the attacked PDF and hone your blackjack logic skills.
An exercise in blackjack logic.pdf
Based on the clarifications you provided years ago, all your systems are based on "CC" which is trivial. Your measurements on various CC are thus trivial as well.
In your words, CC = Correlation Coefficent between the tag values of the (derived) count and the EoR (Effects of Removal).
All of your TOP-DOWN approaches started from tag values. Then trying to manipulate by adding formulas to make the modified tag values close to ideal tag values (ideal tag value examples: face card -1.1151, nine card -0.5524, eight card 0.0564, six card 1.6446, five card 2.5683, four card 1.7278, three card 0.8042 while KO assigned tag value face card -1, nine card 0, eight card 0, six card 1, five card 1, four card 1, three card 1 etc). Compared to Halves which doesn't restrict the tag values to 1, 0, -1. The tag value of Halves can be close to ideal tag value in nature without any side count modifications. You may find formulas and side counts to modify tag values to have the modified tag values close to ideal tag values, but the process is complication, not simplification. Also started from the tag value, then claim say your system has been close to 99% to the ideal tag numbers doesn't guarantee a successful counting system even someone can master the formulas to calculate modified TC in casino real time setting. Because it is just proved that you discover a method to have good tag values that are close to the ideal tag values in effects of card removal. A BETTER APPROACH IS ALWAYS BOTTOM UP METHOD that calculate SCORE. If SCORE is good, then a proposed new counting system is good.
Last edited by BJGenius007; 08-10-2020 at 08:14 AM.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks