T's long-winded posts were annoying and repetitive. But, there was some useful info in them, and I banned a member for spending months calling him (and others) frauds.
He was a fraud, between his fantasy, "I have eliminated variance," system he was unwilling to disclose and pretending it was for BJ, when it was for Sp21.
I seem to recall Don debunking it, too.
Norm, you should probably nip this thread in the bud, before it gets further out of hand.
To the contrary. I praise players using simple counts. I do not like complicated counts like HO2 w ASC, never did and never will.Originally Posted by ZeeBabar
I have three criteria for a count system:
(1) Power - as measured by PE, BE (using CC) and Sims which means if the system was played perfectly, which only a computer can do, which system is best.
But since humans play I add two additional criteria
(2) Accuracy around a true count of four were maximum bets are made and accuracy of the side counts - plus/minus side counts are exact, ASC is approximate.
(3) Ease of use, aka, simplicity.
That is the entire reason I suggested adding 5m9c to the HL. This avoids the HL player learning anything new - he keeps his HL count, HL indices and just adds a very simple plus minus 5m9c for betting and a few simple strategy adjustments to add to the HL that are easy to remember.
The HL w 5m9c does NOT come anywhere close to HO2 w ASC and that was never my goal.
My goal was SIMPLICITY. I wanted a very simple adjustment to the HL that would give an extra advantage to the player.
And I stated that the HL does win but if the HL wants a little extra edge without a lot of work, then I suggested keeping 5m9c with the HL. No new system to learn, betting is improved and a few simple adjustment to select HL strategy changes that are easy to remember.
So this 5m9c is for the HL player who would never switch to another count system but wants extra power with as simple a system as possible.
In the shoe game, improving betting is most important, so 5m9c added to HL fits in here perfectly.
5m9c is a SIMPLE and EASY adjustment to the HL
Last edited by bjanalyst; 08-07-2020 at 10:15 PM.
Attached are some minor stand-alone 5m9c strategy changes. They do not add much but if you are keeping the 5m9c to improve HL betting you might as well know theres.
So please review the attached two page PDF with these stand-along 5m9c strategy changes. You already know the hard 16 v 7 but the others are new.
Six Deck Stand-alone 5m9c strategy changes
Stand on hard 16 v 7 if 5m9c >= 2.5*dr
Stand on hard 16 v 8 if 5m9c >= 4.5*dr
Split 2,2 v 8 DAS if 5m9c >= dr
Split 6,6 v 7 DAS if 5m9c <= (-1)*dr
Split 7,7 v 8 DAS if 5m9c >= dr
As I said these will have just a minor impact on your win rate but might was well learn them if you are keeping 5m9c with HL for betting anyhow.
So please review attached TWO page PDF for details on these plays.
Stand-alone 5m9c.pdf
The BCC for HL is increased, for S17, DAS, LS game, from 96.5% to 98.4% when HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) is used for betting instead of stand alone HL.
Removal of the five helps the player the most as a five will make any dealer stiff into a pat hand.
If 5m9c > 0 then more fives than nines came out of the shoe so there is a deficiency of fives and and excess of nines left in the shoe.
So you swipe out a five for a nine when 5m9c > 0 which helps the player.
Now instead of the dealer hitting his stiff with a five, he hits his stiff with a nine and, except for hard 12, busts.
Note the tag values of HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) as compared to Wong's Halves, which you now has excellent betting efficiency, in the attached file.
The tag values of HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) compared to Wong's Halves differs in only the 2's and 7's. In HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) the 2's are plus one and the sevens are zero and in Wong's Halves the 2's and 7's are each (1/2). The sevens should be counted as (1/2) for betting but in HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) the sevens are still counted as zero. This gives Wong's Halves it additional 0.9% BCC of 98.3% over HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) BCC of 98.4%.
Bottom line is keeping the HL with a simple 5m9c is much simpler than keeping a complicated level 3 Wong's count. You only need to remember two integers, the HL and 5m9c and you update the HL on the fly as the cards are played and yo update the 5m9c after all hands are on the table so you just scan for fives and nines seen and then calculate 5m9s (s = seen) and add to 5m9c from previous round. Then continue to update the 5m9c as the player's finish playing their hands. There are only two ranks you are following with 5m9c so the updating not that frequent.
Alternately, you can use chips to keep the 5m9c. Just be discrete with your 5m9c stack of chips. Don't be obvious with it and do not draw attention. Make it look like you are just playing with your chips. I will attach a PDF showing the 5m9c stack of chips also.
Please look closely at the PDF of using chips with 5m9c. You will notice on the bottom of the PDF is shows SD(5m9c) / SD (HL) = 0.4472. What this means is that the variability of the 5m9c is approximately 45% of the variability of the HL. So in a five out of six decks you can expect the extreme values of the HL ot range from -30 to +30. So the extrema values of 5m9c you can expect to range from (45%)*(-30) = -14 to (45%)*(30) = +14.
Also you have flexibility in spiking out 5m9c and HL for playing strategy play. You will still use HL for most strategy changes and you use 5m9c with the HL only when it helps HL strategy changes. So you have a choice - use 5m9c with playing strategy changes when it helps and don't use it when it does not help and use stand-alone HL instead.
With Wong's Halves you are stuck with one count and must use Wong's Halves for all strategy changes.
Wong Halves improves betting but for some playing strategy changes Wong's Halves reduces HL playing efficiency.
Take for example insurance, the most important playing strategy change.
Wong's Halves used for insurance actually performs worse than HL. With Wong's Halves you do not have a choice as the tag values or fixed for betting and all playing strategy decisions. Using 5m9c you can use it or not use it, whichever is best. Actually for insurance it is best to use 5m9c but with a value of k = (-1/2) in HL + k*(5m9c). That is, you would use HL - (1/2)*(5m9c) for insurance. The gain is so small that I do not recommend you even learn this. Just use HL for all strategy changes except for the few I mentioned that you use HL + 5m9c in my original post.
See attached PDFs. I hope that this answers your questions.
The first is BCC of HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) as compared to Wong's Halves.
The second is insurance of HL vs Wong's Halves.
The third is a diagram of using chips for the 5m9c.
HL w 5m9c vs Wongs Halves.pdf
Insurance with HL vs Wong's Halves.pdf
Chips used for 5m9c.pdf
Last edited by bjanalyst; 08-08-2020 at 08:27 PM.
You continue to harp on halves being a difficult level 3 count. It is a SIMPLE level 3 count. Halves (Basic) does have poor PE and IC, not hugely significant in a shoe game, however adding FBM ASC Basic allows for significant improved strategy and playing decisions for shoe, and turns Halves FBM ASC Basic into a formidable pitch game system. Comments on improved IC and PE have been previously alluded to, and do not need repeated at this time.
FBM ASC Advanced incorporates all that FBM ASC Basic has to offer, plus the tool to properly evaluate the concept of “Quality of True Count”. Your 5m9c might be (I’d have to think on it) the little brother. I would have to actually read more of your PDFs, which I am loath(e) to do.
I might actually consider providing more information on the Quality of True Count, it’s effects on standard ramp schemes as well as its significant positive effect when utilized with a dual ramp system. I’m sure that our viewing public would be thrilled to evaluate the difference between your top flight game system vs. Halves FBM ASC Advanced, with dual ramp system. Of great interest would be the theory behind it, and it’s effects on profitability.
I was specifically asked to ELABORATE on my long initial post which was actually quoted by the reader when he asked me to elaborate.
Apparently that first post was not long enough for the reader and he needed additional clarification.
Not everyone catches on as quickly as you do. I have to write for my audience so there is no misunderstanding.
So this long post was done as a courtesy to those who do not catch on as quickly as you do.
You need to have patience for those who need extra help.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 08-08-2020 at 08:55 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks