Hi BJC
How is the sim of HL w 5m9c coming along?
As I explained, I much prefer the KO as the primary count because using the HL as the primary count does not work out that well when plus/minus side counts are added to HL.
But because the HL is used by the vast majority of counters who refuse to switch to any other count, then my hands were tied to using the HL as the primacy count.
So the simplest count and best count, in my opinion, which also has only a few strategy changes to the HL and that are easy to remember, is the 5m9c. So the count to add to the HL, if only one side count is to be used and the side count is to be a level one plus/minus side count tracking only two ranks, then that best side count, in my opinion, is the 5m9c side count.
So there appears to be some interest in the results which is why you would like to do sims.
I have given you my predictions but of course, if you are going to actually use this count, you want sims to back up my predictions, and I understand that.
Gronbog has already modified his sim programs to add plus/minus side counts to the HL and KO.
Gronbog has already done all of the set up work and his program has been proven correct.
So rather than you going crazy trying to set up your own sim program for HL w 5m9c, if there is enough interest, you may want to ask Gronbog if he would be willing to do the HL w 5m9c sim.
I will leave it up to readers of this post if they would like to see the sims. If there is enough interest, you may be able to convince Gronbog to do the sims for you.
If sims are done I suggested using the simplest version of just the most important 5m9c changes to the HL to sim which is what you would be using anyhow if you added 5m9c to HL.
To review the changes to be simulated are:
1. brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(5m9c)
2. Use HL + 5m9c instead of HL and use HL indices for the following plays.
a. Standing on hard 16 v 8, 9, T and hard 15 v T
b. Doubling 9 v 7
c. ALL surrender decisions
3. For hard 16 v 7, stand if HL >= 2*dr and 5m9c >= 2.5*dr or stand if HL >= 4*dr and 5m9c >= 2*dr, otherwise hit.
4. All other plays use the stand alone HL.
And that is it. You keep the HL and all of its indices so there is nothing new to learn.
And just a few strategy changes and betting changes with the 5m9c and you are done.
It would be interested if the SCORE of the HL w 5m9c were not only compared to the SCORE of HL but also with the SCORE of Wong's Halves.
I predicted HL w 5m9c would tie Wong's Halves because although WH BCC is 0.9% greater than HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) and betting is more important that playing strategy change in the shoe game, the WACC of HL w 5m9c was 1.8% greater than WH. So assuming betting is twice as important as playing strategy changes for the shoe game, then that makes both counts approximately equal.
But with WH you have to learn a difficult level 3 count and some new indices.
With HL w 5m9c you keep you HL count and all if its indices and just add the 5m9c to HL for the few strategy changes listed above. So not much new to learn which is why I like the 5m9c added to the HL.
And you can surreptitiously keep a stack of chips to keep track of 5m9c so you still only have to remember HL in your head. So there is not even any added mental work for the HL player. He just needs to reference the HL count in his head and the number of chips in his 5m9c stack of chips in front of him.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 08-16-2020 at 01:20 AM.
@ bjanalyst:
I've seen you take a lot of needless shit over over your count when comparing it to HL and other counts...the majority of which appears to me to be ego driven. The bottom line is this: it's not just 2-6 and 10s/As that matter re: EOR...7's and 9s ALSO matter!
Yes, you are talking small percentages...but OVER TIME those small percentages add up. I'm too lazy (and a rec player) to be bothered with the extra gain your count produces, but that does not mean you are not statistically correct regarding your nay sayers...so drive on and ignore the negativity of your naysayers. If I were you, and I had sim data to back my theories up, I'd just post sim results and let the critics stew in their own sour grapes.
Last edited by Wave; 08-16-2020 at 01:17 AM.
I do not have a sim program. I have have CC which have been shown over and over again to be just as good as sims.
But players still want to see sims so I understand.
BJC was gong to try to do sims of the HL w 5m9c.
So let's see what BJC comes up with and if there is enough interest in HL w 5m9c then maybe Gronbog will do the sim.
Not sure how much headway BJC has made in simulating HL w 5m9c.
If there are three of four readers who want to see sim results of HL w 5m9c then just maybe Gronbog would do the sim.
But if there is no interest then no sims
I already know the answer with my CC but sims are for readers who want to actually use the HL w 5m9c and want confidence that it works.
I don't use HL w 5m9c but I posted if tor HL readers who do use only HL and want a simple side count to add to HL to improve it.
OK Great. If you have any questions, please let me know.
I thought readers lost interest in HL w 5m9c.
As I said HL w 5m9c should tie Wong's Halves for six decks, five decks dealt S17, DAS, LS (and no LS also) with no side bets offered.
Looking at CC for HL w ASC shown below, I now see HL w ASC actually ties HL w 5m9c for LS and substantially beats HL w 5m9c for WACC but HL w 5m9c beats HL w ASC for betting of course since ASC does not help at all with betting.
As seen in the table below, WACC of HL w 5m9c is 4.9% below HL w 5m9c but HL w 5m9c BCC is 1.9% above HL w ASC. For the shoe game, BE is twice as important as PE so now I think HL w ASC and HL w 5m9c will tie.
The question comes down to accuracy and which count system is easier.
1. The ASC is approximate since it depends on an estimate of decks played whereas the 5m9c is exact
2. The 5m9c fluctuates around its means of zero and so is easy to keep with chips and deviations from normal are obvious if 5m9c is other than zero. ASC has an ever increasing number of Aces played and an estimate of decks played and so is a lot more work and approximate also as I mentioned above.
3. For betting you need extreme accuracy, especially near the end of the shoe. 5m9c is exact here which is very important for betting near the end of the shoe.
4. Also accuracy is important for playing strategy variations and again 5m9c is exact whereas ASC is approximate so 5m9c gives more accurate playing strategy changes.
Simulation results show the power of two systems if played perfectly. Simulations do not take into account that humans play.
So my three criteria for count systems are.
1. Ease of Use
2. Accuracy
3. Power
So I believe HL w ASC and HL w 5m9c will be approximately equal in power. But 5m9c beats ASC in both ease of use and accuracy. Thus 5m9c should be preferred over HL w ASC.
Attached is a four page PDF with Gronbog's sim results of HL w 7m9c for top six 7m9s strategy changes which were five LS changes and hit/stand on hard 14 v T. So almost all of HL w 7m9c strategy changes were for help with LS.
I think HL w 5m9c will be approximately equal to HL w 7m9c when LS is offered and if LS is not offered, HL w 5m9c will beat HL w 7m9c.
....................................WACC.......... ..LSCC.............BCC
HL................................73.7%........... 64.9%...........96.5%
HL w 7m9c top 6............73.7%............79.3%...........98.1 %
HL w 5m9c....................77.6%............69.2%.... ......98.4%
HL w ASC......................82.5%............70.8%... .......96.5%
HO2 w ASC...................85.8%............73.4%...... .....97.9%
WACC = weighted average CC for regular blackjack
LSCC = late surrender CC
BCC = betting CC
HL w 7m9c sims.pdf
Last edited by bjanalyst; 08-19-2020 at 11:15 PM.
Bookmarks