I never said it was a fact that your count system was poorer than the HL, Red 7 and KO. That was not the fact I was talking about. That was a conclusion I drew from the lower CC of your counts which I did admit could be argued.
What I said were facts were
(1) The values of the CC for your counts, HL, Red 7 and KO and B2R7. I used the Excel function CORREL to get the betting CC for all of these various counts. The value of the CC for these various counts is the fact I was talking about.
(2) Gronbog's sims of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beat HO2 w ASC for all scenarios.
Those were the facts I was talking about
And I specifically said let the readers draw their own conclusions based on the success of the CC in over 20 simulations and the fact that there has yet to be a single situation where the CC increased and the SCORE decreased.
I want to further point out that Tarzan who had simulations run for his count for both no LS and LS, Tarzan chose to publish the results of his count only for the no LS case and to withhold publication of the simulation results of his LS run. It makes one wonder if Tarzan has something to hide.
I would like to contrast that with myself. I had Gronbog publish every single simulation he did for me and in every simulation when the CC increased the SCORE increased.
I have nothing to hide and I have been 100% transparent.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 10-17-2020 at 09:07 PM.
Thanks for the reference to the sims you did for HL, Red 7 and KO
The results of your sims are at odds with my CC projections that Red 7 beats HL and that KO beats Red 7. And as you know my CC technique has been proven again and again to be wildly successful. It is hard to argue with success.
In a previous post I had listed the KO indices that I derived using the LSL technique and suggested that you re-run your sims using the true count formula and the KO indices I gave you where tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr where tc(KO) = KO true count, KO = KO running count, n = number of decks and dr = decks remaining.
It should further be noted that the KO indices are very close to the HL indices so there really just a few situations where KO indices differs from HL indices that need to be learned.
For the shoe game I suggested KO with my TCRC (Table of Critical Running Counts) so in practice there is no need to use a formula to calculate the true counts for the shoe game.
For the two deck game where true counts jump all over the place, I would not use an unbalanced count but I would suggest HL with Am6c (and 5m9c) or the HL2 with Am6c (and 5m9c) where HL2 is the HL with the 2 counted at +1/2 instead of +1 in the HL and the 7 counted as +1/2 instead of 0 in the HL.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 10-17-2020 at 09:05 PM.
FWIW I've never seen an actual sim of a suit-aware count that didn't suck. Feel free to post one. The Red7 Shoe strategy that comes with CVCX is about 10% weaker than REKO-F Six Deck on 6D H17 DAS LS RSA 1.0. And it's actually even weaker than that, because the tags have 7 as 0.5 so CVCX can handle it, instead of doing the actual suit-aware thing that adds noise and probably costs an additional 5% or so.
I'll offer a separate prize category of $100 for the best suit aware DD count (but only if it's 1% better than the OP).
It seems extremely unlikely I'll have to pay out, because suit-awareness adds noise to the count with irrelevant info.
Calculations are as valid with unbalanced counts as with balanced counts.
The CC works with both balanced and unbalanced counts.
The CC is invariant under a linear transformation which can be easily verified by reference to any math text book.
Attached are two PDFs.
1. The first PDF shows the unbalanced KO count and it's balanced version (which is a linear transformation of the unbalanced KO) have a CC of 100% and are equivalent.
2. The second PDF shows the calculation of the infinite deck index and other statistics using KO and KO.balanced. All statistics are the same with KO and its balanced version KO.balanced.
CC invariant under liner transformation.pdf
Example KO and KO.balanced.pdf
Exactly correct, suit awareness does add noise. Refer to PDF in previous post where I compared the CC of various counts.
For betting S17, DAS, LS here are the betting CC as seen in the attacked PDF.
B2R7....95.17%
Red 7... 96.40%
HL........96.51%
KO.......96.51%
HL2......97.64%
The HL2 I defined as the HL but with the deuce counted as +1/2 instead of +1 in the HL and the seven counted as +1/2 instead of 0 in the HL.
B2R7 is the HL with black 2 as +1 and red 2 as zero and red 7 as +1 and black 7 as zero.
The PDF attached to that previous post showed the CC of B2R7 compared to HL2, The difference in the CC clearly show the noise you were referring to when suit awareness is taken into consideration.
Counting the Red 7's as 1 and the black 7's as zero is NOT the same and inferior to counting all sevens as +1/2.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 10-18-2020 at 05:21 AM.
Infinite deck indices are very useful since as the CC increases, the indices for all decks converge to the infinite deck index.
My goal in using side counts is to increased the CC of the most common plays rather than adding indices for plays that almost never happen and my strategy works and so infinite deck indices become more and more accurate as CC increase.
See attached PDF from a book that I am currently finishing that shows this.
As CC increases, indces converge to infinite deck indices.pdf
Bookmarks