For HL player who refuses to switch to KO use 5m9c as a side count to HL

[bjanalyst]

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,

If is a matter of personal preference as to what someone considers simple and not simple.

What I am doing is giving the reader choices.

I personally think the level three Wong's Halves is very difficult.

And you also mention that PE and IC are not that significant in the shoe game. So you basically admit what is most important is BE which is what the 5m9c used with the HL does. HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) has a BCC of 98.4% which actually beats HO2 w ASC BCC of 97.8% and is only 0.9% below Wong's Halves BCC of 99.3% for the S17, DAS, LS game.

What I know from experience that every counter I ever meet uses HL and they want to keep the HL and will not change to Wong's Halves or to your FBM system or to any other system for than matter. I could not even get them to change to the KO.

So what I did was try to come put with a simple adjustment to the HL that improves betting and as icing ion the cake, since you are keeping the 5m9c anyhow, a few strategy changes. I just mentioned a few top strategy changes using HL + 5m9c instead of HL as that is most of the strategy gain. The main reason for including 5m9c with the HL was to improve betting.

I said from the very beginning that the HL w 5m9c does not come close to the HO2 w ASC.

My goal was SIMPLICITY - a SIMPLE addition to the HL that will increase mainly the BE and a little PE of the HL. My goal was NOT to make the most powerful system. My goal was just to make the HL a little better with minimal work.

The fact that HO2 w ASC or your FBM beats HL or HL w 5m9c is immaterial since the HL player, who I wrote this article for, would never use either system.

[Freightman]

If is a matter of personal preference as to what someone considers simple and not simple.

What I am going is giving the reader choices.

I personally think the level three Wong's Halves is very difficult.

What I know from experience that every counter i ever meet uses HL and they want to keep the HL and will not change to Wong's Halves or to your FBM system.

So what I did was try to come put with the simplest adjustment to the HL that improves betting and as icing ion the cake, since you are keeping the 5m9c anyhow, a few strategy changes. I just mentioned a few top strategy changes using HL + 5m9c instead of HL as that is most of the strategy gain. The main reason for including 5m9c with the HL was to improve betting.

I said from the very beginning that the HL w 5m9c does not come close to the HO2 w ASC.

My goal was SIMPLICITY - a SIMPLE addition to the HL that will increase mainly the BE and a little PE of the HL. My goal was NOT to make the most powerful system, Just to make the HL a little better with minimal work.

The fact that HO2 w ASC or your FBM beats HL or HL w 5m9c is immaterial since the HL player, who I wrote this article for, would never use hyour system.

Ahh, but Halves FBM ASC Advanced likely beats the best of your systems, especially when in concert with a dual ramp betting system.

I’m sure this will thrill our viewing audience, but I’ve actually now read a couple of your attachments along with your commentary. Not withstanding your extreme verbosity, there’s actually something to this. The problem for most people is regardless of your hype, most people don’t care preferring simplicity. My motivations for my Schtick is a graduation of thought over several years, and like Dr. Gregory House, have a need to improve and solve a puzzle.

I have no desire to convert the masses.

[bjanalyst]

The problem for most people is regardless of your hype, most people don’t care preferring simplicity.

That has not been my experience at all.

As I mentioned in my post above, I have meet over a dozen counters over the years and every single one of them uses HL and will not even consider switching to another system. They make money with the HL and they are happy with it.

I think if you actually conducted a poll, you would see that most players stick with the HL.

If you have a poll of the various counts that players actually use, please post it here as I would be interested.

But again, this article was written for the HL player who refuses to switch to another count system and just to give that player some extra edge with minimal work.

[Freightman]

That has not been my experience at all.

As I mentioned in my post above, I have meet over a dozen counters over the years and every single one of them uses HL and will not even consider switching to another system. They make money with the HL and they are happy with it.

I think if you actually conducted a poll, you would see that most players stick with the HL.

If you have a poll of the various counts that players actually use, please post it here as I would be interested.

But again, this article was written for the HL player who refuses to switch to another count system and just to give that player some extra edge with minimal work.

Hi Lo is simple simple simple. It’s easy to use and gets the money. It’s ideal for the recreational player who doesn’t put in a lot of hours, thus negating the need for additional study. It’s ideal for teams as it’s usage is virtually universal and makes it easier to manage in many ways, especially in spotter big player scenarios.

I know lots of solo high end players who utilize Hi Lo. Whether they’ve tweaked it is another matter. All kinds of theories out there.

In any event, I need to rest up for tomorrow. My annual birthday bbq with wife, kids, their wives, grandchildren, brother and his wife. Simple menu, nuggets and fries for the grandchildren, high end Glatt Kosher Steaks for everyone else, baked potato, garlic toast, garden salad, bean salad, macaroni salad, home made apple pie, rhubarb pie, fruit salad, parva ice cream. Steaks are marinating now in the basement fridge.

[bjanalyst]

[QUOTE=Freightman;290104In any event, I need to rest up for tomorrow. My annual birthday bbq with wife, kids, their wives, grandchildren, brother and his wife. Simple menu, nuggets and fries for the grandchildren, high end Glatt Kosher Steaks for everyone else, baked potato, garlic toast, garden salad, bean salad, macaroni salad, home made apple pie, rhubarb pie, fruit salad, parva ice cream. Steaks are marinating now in the basement fridge.[/QUOTE]So

Sounds like fun. Have a good time.

I am glad you agree the HL is very popular, even with teams.

So that is why I presented 5m9c to use with HL. All of these players can keep the HL and just add a simple 5m9c adjustment that they can use chips to keep track of so they only need to keep HL in their heads.

I estimate HL w 5m9c will tie Wong's Halves. It is a little short on BE compared to Wong's Halves but a bit more powerful on PE so in total I think the two would be close.

But the difference is that teams and many other use HL and do not use Wong's Halves. For these players using 5m9c is a viable option to improve their game and still keep the HL which, if they are playing on a team, they are required to do.

If you have access to any sim programs why don't you test my conclusion that the HL w 5m9c used for betting and the few top strategy changes I mentioned in my first post will basically tie Wong's Halves for the shoe game - six decks, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS. Note that 5m9c helps (use HL + 5m9c instead of HL and use all HL indices) with EVERY late surrender decisions along with improving the important hard 16 v T and hard 15 v T. The other minor improvements were doubling hard 9 v 7, standing on hard 16 v 8 and 9 all of which just simply use HL + 5m9c and hard 16 v 7 stand if tc(HL) > 4 and 5m9c >= 2*dr where dr = decks remaining. Just use these strategy changes with HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) for betting and see if I am correct in that HL w 5m9c ties Wong's Halves.

[Freightman]

So

Sounds like fun. Have a good time.

I am glad you agree the HL is very popular, even with teams.

So that is why I presented 5m9c to use with HL. All of these players can keep the HL and just add a simple 5m9c adjustment that they can use chips to keep track of so they only need to keep HL in their heads.

I estimate HL w 5m9c will tie Wong's Halves. It is a little short on BE compared to Wong's Halves but a bit more powerful on PE so in total I think the two would be close.

But the difference is that teams and many other use HL and do not use Wong's Halves. For these players using 5m9c is a viable option to improve their game and still keep the HL which, if they are playing on a team, they are required to do.

If you have access to any sim programs why don't you test my conclusion that the HL w 5m9c used for betting and the few top strategy changes I mentioned in my first post will basically tie Wong's Halves for the shoe game - six decks, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS. Note that 5m9c helps (use HL + 5m9c instead of HL and use all HL indices) with EVERY late surrender decisions along with improving the important hard 16 v T and hard 15 v T. The other minor improvements were doubling hard 9 v 7, standing on hard 16 v 8 and 9 all of which just simply use HL + 5m9c and hard 16 v 7 stand if tc(HL) > 4 and 5m9c >= 2*dr where dr = decks remaining. Just use these strategy changes with HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) for betting and see if I am correct in that HL w 5m9c ties Wong's Halves.

What you’ll find is that the best managed teams will standardize everything, including count systems. Hi Lo is popular not only for simplicity of use, but also for the immense volume of good literature available. Those teams who may be induced to tweak, are almost certainly going to add an ASC versus your 5m9c, and almost certainly because of info available.

One of the big issues for me, as well as teams are hands per hour. Personally, I’m well prepared to give up some power in exchange for that vital criteria of HPH. Having said that, Power of FBM ASC advanced is massive.

I don’t have sim programs, other than CvData, and frankly I can’t sim my own game. It’s been an evolution, and I really don’t give a shit waphat others think.

Last, but not least, the catchphrase FBM ASC, (independent of my private thoughts) started as joke, and stands for
Freightman Ball Method Ace Side Count, and revolves around finger activity on your nut sack to track aces. As the phrase is established, I now use it as my trademark phrase. I now confess to all that I only occasionally touch my balls during play and then, primarily for adjustment.

[bjanalyst]

What you’ll find is that the best managed teams will standardize everything, including count systems. Hi Lo is popular not only for simplicity of use, but also for the immense volume of good literature available. Those teams who may be induced to tweak, are almost certainly going to add an ASC versus your 5m9c, and almost certainly because of info available.

i have already extensively analyzed both HL w 5m9c and HL w ASC. I do not like HL w ASC plus it is LESS POWERFUL than HL w 5m9c.

I have three PDFs I will attach with the proof that HL w 5m9c is better than HL w ASC plus it is easier.

I do not need sims. Gronbog has run over 20 sim programs for me and every single time my CC increased, the SCORE increased. In testing HL w 7m9c Gronbog's SCORE decreased. I told Gronbog that makes no sense. He found his mistake and again the SCORE increased when my CC increased. My CC have passed every single test. They are just as good as sims.

So when I say HL w 5m9c should tie Wong's Halves I can say that with confident. Also it will tie HL w ASC for playing strategy changes but also have BE improvements so it will trounce HL w ASC.

The CC give pinpoint surgical accuracy for every single strategy change.

So here is my analysis followed by my proof.

I do not like an ASC for at least these reasons.
1. It is not exact. An ASC is approximate, It depends on an estimate of decks played which would need to be estimated to at least the half deck level.
2. It is difficult as there is an ever increasing Aces played that you need to track.
3. It basically ties HL w 5m9c for strategy changes. I will be attaching PDFs with HL w ASC and HL w 5m9c strategy changes.
4, It does NOTHING for betting. You admitted that BE is most important for the shoe game. Well 5m9c helps with BE and ASC does not.

I like 5m9c because.
1. It is EXACT. It is a plus/minus side count and so does not depend on any estimate of decks played. You need that accuracy for betting and playing strategy and especially for betting near the end of the shoe.
2. The 5m9c fluctuates around its means of zero and the deviation from normal is immediate obvious and exact. It does not require an increasing value of decks played as ASC does as Ap continually increases as decks are played.
3. It ties ASC for playing strategy changes.
4. It increased BCC for HL from 96.5% to 98.4% whereas ASC does absolutely nothing to help with betting.

So I will be attaching three PDFs to prove and drive home my points.

1. HL w ASC
This is a two page PDF. The first page describes the ASC and the second page lists the major playing strategy changes with ASC.

2. HL w 5m9c
This is a two page PDF. The first page lists the major playing strategy changes and the second page shows a chart On the second page chart, for everything in blue use HL + 5m9c with HL indices for strategy changes (except hard 16 v 7 which uses stand alone 5m9c) and for everything else use stand alone HL.

3. HL w 5m9c vs HL w ASC
This is a two page PDF. The first page shows the common strategy changes that 5m9c and ASC helps with. For all practical purposed, 5m9c and ASC help with HL ties for hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T and hard 15 v T help. The second page shows the strategy changes that 5m9c helps with that ASC does not, mainly 5m9c helps with every late surrender strategy change whereas ASC does not. And the 2nd page also shows the strategy changes that ASC helps with that 5m9c does not. These strategy changes are insurance, hard 12 v 6, double hard 10 v T and double hard 11 v A.

So overall I will call it a tie with playing strategy changes of HL w ASC and HL w 5m9c.

But given that the 5m9c is EXACT and easy to keep and given that it helps with BE which ASC does not, the 5m9c is a much better count to keep with the HL than ASC.

There is not need to do sims. I KNOW that I am correct. I have been correct every single time before and I am correct now also.

If teams want to keep using the HL and want to improve the HL then use 5m9c and do not use ASC.

So attached as the three PDFs, each two pages, that prove my point.
HL w ASC.pdf
HL w 5m9c.pdf
HL w 5m9c vs HL w ASC.pdf

[21forme]

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.
Attachment 4303
Attachment 4304
Attachment 4305

Too short. Longer, please. And you left a few things out. Please repeat everything you've written 25 times, and go for 26. We're all ears.

Don

Don - you forgot to completely quote the ramblings of bjanal(yst) before making a one line response.

[bjanalyst]

Don - you forgot to completely quote the ramblings of bjanal(yst) before making a one line response.

My reply to you is in font 1 because your post deserves only font 1 reply because your post is so small and insignificant.

I already responded to this reply by Don that he thought my reply was too long, which response obviously you did not read.

The reader legitimately quoted my full original post because he did not fully understand what I wrote and asked to ELABORATE. So my response was full and complete so that those interested could fully understand what I said.

I would like to contrast that quote of my full response with your quote of my full response. You are obviously not an interested reader so my posts here are no concern of yours and you should not even be replying since you have nothing to add and no legitimate questions, only insults. Thus you quoted my full response to try to make me look small while you are actually the person who is small.

Your post accomplishes nothing and adds no new information and is actually a bit insulting to those who are interested in improving the HL with minimal work.

Freightman is the one who mentioned that teams would add ASC before they would add 5m9c to the HL and I just showed him that the 5m9c is actually a better side count for the HL than ASC is.

Also the person who quoted my entire original post and asked me to elaborate was legitimate because he wanted clarification. Your posting of my entire reply is designed to demean and degrade either me personally or my reply.

I noticed something very interesting in how responses have developed to my posts. Originally when I was posting my side counts I was told they were no good, would not produce good results, that the CC method does not work, that plus/minus side counts do not work and many other posts questioning the validity of my methods and trying to discard my analysis as rubbish and untrue and that my analysis be put into the voodoo blackjack posts.

Now that the accuracy of my analysis can no longer be questioned and that I post only legitimate results, these replies by you and a few others, who my posts were obviously not meant for, have degraded to personal insults to me or that my posts are too long. You are trying to grasp at straws to have something negative to say about me or my posts so that you feel better about yourself. Not all people catch on immediately and thus I posted a complete explanation. Since you are not interested in what I am posting you should not even be reading them and you certainly and definitely should not be replying to them since you have nothing construction to say.

So here is my challenge to you. Instead of insulting me why don't you try to poke holes in my analysis in my posts and try to find some errors.

Posting errors or improvements in my posts is constructive criticisms. Your posts are destructive criticism.

The reason you do not say anything constructive is that you can't because my posts are correct.

Since you cannot find any errors in my posts, you resort to destructive criticism which accomplishes nothing and adds needlessly to the length of this post.

Then there will be complaints that there are too many replies to my posts of which half would be destructive replies by some readers like yourself with no class. Then you can point to the length of replies to my posts as negative, the length of these replies having been caused by you with these needless and insulting replies. I know what your game is all about.

Maybe it is a bit of jealously that you could not come up with improvements on your own. That I do not know as I am not a psychologist. All I know is that I am asking to please stop with destructive posts.

I welcome all constructive criticism. I abhor destructive criticism designed to degrade and insult.

Constructive criticism only please.

[PinkChip]

I think we all know now that Gronbog did 20 sims, every single one of which showed an increase in SCORE when CC increased. No need to repeat this another 500 times.

[Freightman]

I think we all know now that Gronbog did 20 sims, every single one of which showed an increase in SCORE when CC increased. No need to repeat this another 500 times.

I feel a need to describe in excruciating detail, the awesome power of the FBM ASC Advanced. I’m sure I can achieve this in under 500 posts.

[ZeeBabar]

I feel a need to describe in excruciating detail, the awesome power of the FBM ASC Advanced. I’m sure I can achieve this in under 500 posts.

Freightman, please don’t!

[DSchles]

I have just laid the gauntlet. Notice my spelling of loath(e).

I'm more troubled by your spelling of "its."

Don