Perfect insurance

[Tarzan]

True Count and Insurance Count can be two completely different animals if you are trying for a perfect Insurance Count. As an example, you can have a deck composition with TC+5, but IC+1. A matter of surplus or deficit (7,8,9) in the remainder of the deck and Aces, which behave differently for the Insurance Count impacts things (add deficit and deduct surplus), depending upon what count you use are the reason for this. I have a regular count and an insurance count derived from the same information, but calculated differently. I'm not going to go into it at length, but suffice it to say that it's possible for TC and IC to be drastically different from one another.

[Freightman]

TC and IC to be drastically different from one another.

yup

. Insurance Count. As an example, you can have a deck composition with TC+5, but IC+1. A matter of surplus or deficit (7,8,9) in the remainder of the deck and Aces, which behave differently for the Insurance Count impacts things (add deficit and deduct surplus), depending upon what count you use are the reason for this.

Further, it sure looks like you utilize something similar to my acronym of QTC (Quality of True Count) for betting purposes.

[beating vegas]

[email protected]

I’m going to email you. I’m just going to send nude pictures of woman.

[Freightman]

I’m going to email you. I’m just going to send nude pictures of woman.

Don will be upset with you. You used the plural of picture(s) for the singular of wome(a)n.

Haven’t seen anything yet - send a couple. I’ll comment after.

[Secretariat]

I'm not going to go into it at length, but suffice it to say that it's possible for TC and IC to be drastically different from one another.

I had a feeling for this but only recently did I realize how different that could be. I had a -4 HiLo RC in second half of a DD shoe and yet, 35% of the cards left were Tens. I admire your approach Tarzan. I have no idea about your betting ramps but I practiced your concept for awhile and I was just too slow with it. I wonder what your insurance efficiency would be. My guess is that it is close to 45 % and perhaps even better. Am I right?

[21frogman]

Don will be upset with you. You used the plural of picture(s) for the singular of wome(a)n.

If he comments, He'll probably take issue with the lack of an article before "woman." "Multiple pictures of a woman" is grammatically correct.

[beating vegas]

Don will be upset with you. You used the plural of picture(s) for the singular of wome(a)n.

Haven’t seen anything yet - send a couple. I’ll comment after.

At this point Don just rolls his eyes at my post.

[Freightman]

Don will be upset with you. You used the plural of picture(s) for the singular of wome(a)n.

Haven’t seen anything yet - send a couple. I’ll comment after.

I always preferred the natural look. Never did care for the esthetics of a bald eagle. Other attributes are....perky.

[beating vegas]

If he comments, He'll probably take issue with the lack of an article before "woman." "Multiple pictures of a woman" is grammatically correct.

The important thing is the woman. Let’s not worry about a few errors in grammar.

[beating vegas]

If he comments, He'll probably take issue with the lack of an article before "woman." "Multiple pictures of a woman" is grammatically correct.

Do you prefer Balled Eagle ?

[21frogman]

Do you prefer Balled Eagle ?

At first I thought that you misspelled "Bald."
My answer was in reference to that word.
No, i don't prefer "Balled Eagle."

[beating vegas]

To each their own.

[21frogman]

To each their own.

Correction: No, I don't prefer Balled Eagle. See my corrected post above.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk