Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 14

Thread: HI-LO with a side count of SEVENS

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    HI-LO with a side count of SEVENS

    Code:
    Hi,
     
    Continuing with the Hi-Lo saga with a side count of aces, I wanted to share something similar but with a side count of sevens.
    I think that counting sevens is much simpler than counting aces and I could even say that it is possible to boost Hi-Lo more than with aces.
    The advantage of counting sevens is that we significantly improve the BC of the system. There are different variants, two of which I have already presented 20 years ago as CAC/7 and CAC/71.
    The main advantage of side counting sevens is that you don't need to change any Hi-Lo index like you do with a side count of aces (according to the "new" technique).
    Let's see the different variants:
     
    1) Hi-Lo/7
     
    pc = -1   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0  -1 (irc = 0)
    sc =  0   0   0   0   0   0   1   0   0   0 (irc = -24)
     
    For playing decisions we use "pc" which is essentially Hi-Lo.
    For betting decisions we use "pc + sc" which is essentially TKO.
     
    BC = 0.9719
    IC = 0.7647
    PC = 0.7618 (Playing correlation over R22 plays)
     
    2) Hi-Lo/71
     
    pc = -1   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0  -1 (irc = 0)
    sc =  0   0   0   0   0   0   1   0   0   0 (irc = -24)
     
    For playing decisions we use "pc" which is essentially Hi-Lo.
    For betting decisions we use "pc + sc" which is essentially TKO.
    For insurance we also use "pc + sc" which is the TKO insurance index.
     
    BC = 0.9719
    IC = 0.7881
    PC = 0.7628 (Playing correlation over R22 plays)
     
    3) CAC/7
     
    pc = -1   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0  -1 (irc = 0)
    sc =  0   0   0   0   0   0   1   0   0   0 (irc = -24)
     
    For playing decisions we use "pc" which is essentially Hi-Lo.
    For betting decisions we use "2 * pc + sc" which is a sort of double Red Seven.
     
    BC = 0.9799
    IC = 0.7647
    PC = 0.7618 (Playing correlation over R22 plays)
     
    4) CAC/71
     
    pc = -1   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0  -1 (irc = 0)
    sc =  0   0   0   0   0   0   1   0   0   0 (irc = -24)
     
    For playing decisions we use "pc" which is essentially Hi-Lo.
    For betting decisions we use "2 * pc + sc" which is a sort of double Red Seven.
    For insurance we use "pc + sc" which is the TKO insurance index.
     
    BC = 0.9799
    IC = 0.7881
    PC = 0.7628 (Playing correlation over R22 plays)
     
    Let's see a comparative table of SCOREs for the following rules: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,4.5/6,R22 plays,50 billion rounds each.
     
                1-12        1-16 
    CAC/71      22.71      26.75
    Hi-Lo/A01   22.67      26.57
    CAC/7       22.50      26.53
    Hi-Lo/A0    22.53      26.42
    Hi-Lo/71    22.20      26.23
    TKO         22.22      26.21
    Hi-Lo/7     22.01      26.02
    KO          21.04      25.04
    Hi-Lo       21.15      25.00
     
    Enjoy!
      
    Sincerely,
    Cac

  2. #2
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,154


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Wonderful! Let me get these terminologies straight. CAC/7 means Cacarulo/7 count, and TKO means True KO count.

    I guess the 7SC will help insurance halfway as much as the ASC does; however, many blackjack tables have the Blazing 7's side bet, which may be greatly helped by the 7SC.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by aceside View Post
    Wonderful! Let me get these terminologies straight. CAC/7 means Cacarulo/7 count, and TKO means True KO count.
    Correct.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thank you for the solid data Cac!

    Have you ever done Hilo with two side counts (A) plus (789s)?

    I am not making allusion to Silver Fox (with 7= +1; 8=0; 9 =-1)

    I am talking about 789 as a block and the percentage of 789s being below, or over, 23% of total undealt cards.
    With another twist this leads to perfect insurance.
    Last edited by Secretariat; 05-10-2022 at 06:33 PM.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretariat View Post
    Thank you for the solid data Cac!

    Have you ever done Hilo with two side counts (A) plus (789s)?

    I am not making allusion to Silver Fox (with 7= +1; 8=0; 9 =-1)

    I am talking about 789 as a block and the percentage of 789s being below, or over, 23% of total undealt cards.
    With another twist this leads to perfect insurance.

    No, I haven't.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretariat View Post
    Thank you for the solid data Cac!

    Have you ever done Hilo with two side counts (A) plus (789s)?

    I am not making allusion to Silver Fox (with 7= +1; 8=0; 9 =-1)

    I am talking about 789 as a block and the percentage of 789s being below, or over, 23% of total undealt cards.
    With another twist this leads to perfect insurance.
    Don't start going Tarzan on us now!

    Don

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Don't start going Tarzan on us now!

    Don
    Haha! That was not my intention, Don!

    I did not know Cac and it looks like he's done a lot of "different" stuff.

    By the way, hello Tarzan!
    We haven't seen you in a while!
    How the hell are you?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    All is peachy keen for me, aside from not being in a casino for the last couple of years so I don't get anyone's Covid cooties on me. I don't post that much because of being preoccupied by large-breasted Swedish massage girls off in my jungle lair in conjunction with the fact that there's little I can post that will be of any help to anyone because my knowledge is very specific to T count and just isn't very applicable for most people. I've never done a specific side count on (7)'s, but when a side bet scenario is available, such as the Lucky Lucky side bet, I'm looking for a deck composition fingerprint that fits wagering on it. On the (7)'s, I am abreast of middle cards with a specific count on (6)'s, but when it comes to (7)'s, I think in terms of "Seen lots of (7) come out of the deck" and "Haven't seen a lot of (7) come out of the deck", which is the "Use the force, Luke" Star Wars method. Same with the (9). I don't necessarily have an exact count of these. If you were to watch me demonstrate what I do procedurally, laying out the last 10 of so cards out of the deck, in the remaining cards I'll know the exact number of {2-5}, the ratio of (2,3) to (4,5) within the {2-5} grouping, the exact number of {6-9} and the breakdown of how many are (6), how many are (7-9). Beyond that, when it comes to (7), (9) I don't keep an exact count.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    ... in conjunction with the fact that there's little I can post that will be of any help to anyone because my knowledge is very specific to T count and just isn't very applicable for most people. .
    Here's a question that could be of interest to all. Considering your superior efficiency and your risk averse approach Tarzan, how many big bets do you keep in your active bankroll? Would also be nice to know how that ratio of big bets/bankroll changed over the years as you perfected your art.

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarzan View Post
    I'll know the exact number of {2-5}, the ratio of (2,3) to (4,5) within the {2-5} grouping, the exact number of {6-9} and the breakdown of how many are (6), how many are (7-9). Beyond that, when it comes to (7), (9) I don't keep an exact count.
    Sorry Don, but Tarzan triggered my curiosity here.

    OK, Tarzan Basic is not that hard for anyone willing to practice it but what you’re talking about here, is the Tarzan count at its highest level. I am trying to figure out what’s going on in your mind, Tarzan.

    Let’s say you’re using Tarzan Basic and for example, you’re playing six deck and the T-count is 10-4-0-12 at approximately the three-deck level. There’s no way to know exactly how many cards of each denomination are left in the shoe except from 12 aces. With Tarzan Basic in this case, you also know that you should take insurance with the dealer showing an ace but you don’t know the exact number of 2-5s, 6-9s and Tens.

    I’m trying to figure out how you mentally figure out the exact number of cards left.
    My guess is that your 5th count (the exact count of 4s and 5s?) leads you to that. So let’s say there are 18x45s left and you also know that there are four more 23s than 45s, that gives you a total of 18+22 = 40 x 2345s. From there you can easily determine that there are six more 6789s left for a total of 46 x 6789s and four more tens than 6789s for a total of 50 tens.

    Doing that quickly is another story though. This is much more difficult than Tarzan Basic.

    So the absolute deck composition is 40-46-50-12 with a total of 148 cards left, just slightly less than three full decks.

    Plus, you have a sixth “exact” count, the 6s, from which you can calculate the exact number of 789s left in the shoe.

    Is that how you do it Tarzan? Keeping six counts and deriving more specific information from it?
    Last edited by Secretariat; 05-20-2022 at 10:46 AM.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    It would be easier to just show you in a video conference rather than describing it. There is a "short-hand" I use for thinking about this. If the count is 5-0-3, not factoring in anything else, the RC is +1. I add to this if more (2,3) or (4,5) are removed by thinking of them as "ahead". For every two (2,3) "ahead" of (4,5), deduct 1 from the RC, for every two (4,5) "ahead" add 1 to the RC. Same with the (A) and (6). For every (A) "ahead" of (6), deduct 1 from the RC, for every (6) ahead of (A), add 1 to the RC.

    5-0-3, two (4,5) "ahead", one (6) "ahead" is +1+1+1=RC+3

    5-0-3. two (2,3) "ahead", one (A) "ahead is +1-1-1=RC<+1

    So, if the count is 5-0-3, two (4,5) ahead, one (6) ahead, and there are 14 cards remaining, the remaining cards consist of two {2-5}, both of which are (2,3), seven {6-9} with no (6) left, four {T}, and one (A). If you were to watch me do a card-counting demonstration, you'll see at the end that I lay out the cards face down into whatever column they go in, sort of reverse engineering. I see the finite number of cards remaining, so just fill in the blank.

    I don't think of it as "this many (2,3) and this many (4,5)" and think of just the base number with one or the other as "ahead" (or the grouping is in an even distribution). 4-0-0 in an even distribution is RC+4, but 4-0-0 with two (2,3) "ahead" is RC+3. I do it like this to be able to make the calculations relatively instantaneously at the table.

    I don't have an "exact" count of the (6)'s. I have an exact count of the {6-9} grouping and from there know if (6) or (A) are ahead, of if they are even with each other. That's all it has to be for RC/TC determination. Beyond that the volume of (A) and (6) in the remainder matter for playing decisions, though. I will only estimate this without worrying about the exact. I am thinking in terms of (A) or (6) ahead, but will also keep in mind how many (A) I've seen when glancing at the discard rack. If no (A) or (6) have come out of the deck so far and you're 2 decks into a 6-deck shoe, this has a neutral impact on the RC/TC but can be significant for various playing decisions. Take for example the bane of our existence, ugly and in your face 15vsT with that deck composition. 2 decks into the 6-deck shoe, and no (A) or (6) have come out, a freak of nature in the nightmarish 15vsT scenario and with the negative count 0-0-8, a couple of (2,3) ahead. My index says surrender down to 0-0-4 per deck (TC-4), and from there hit even with surrender being available for this negative expectation hand. I'm at the equivalent of TC-2, but with all those extra fucking (6)'s, this alters things, moving the line of demarcation of the index, putting me into the zone to hit it rather than surrender.

    Now on the index on a higher count with 15vsT, that same scenario in which no (A) or (6) have come from the deck, my index to stand at 4 decks remaining is TC+8 (TC+6 at 1 deck remaining), but if my count is 24-3-0, {2-5} even, at 3 decks remaining, this situation with the surplus (6) moves the line of demarcation for the index. I am no longer at the index to stand and am in the zone to hit. I am at the same spot on the chart. It's the actual line of demarcation for the index that has moved. The red zone to hit got bigger.

    This is for the purposes of attaining the RC/TC, but when is the need for an accurate RC/TC necessary? Less than TC+2 and you are betting a minimum, and at TC+5 or greater you are slapping down a max bet, so if at a glance you can see that you are definitely less than RC+1, there is no reason to calculate the exact. For example, 12-0-11, four (A) ahead, estimated six (2,3) ahead at 2.75 decks remaining, without calculating the exact I can see that I'm RC<+1. There is no need for an exact calculation. On the other end of the spectrum, if the count is 12-15-0, four (6) ahead, and est. six (4,5) ahead at 2.5 decks remaining, without calculating the exact and at a glance I know I am TC>+5 and it's time to slap down a max bet.

    I try to maximize the most information in the most mentally ergonomic manner possible for me. I envision the groupings sort of like "silos", and sort of picture those shapes as I am rattling down the count. Now, back to that 15vsT for a minute in closing this out. No matter WHAT count you were using, we would have all had a minimum bet out there for that, and from there whether you hit, surrender near that surrender index it's practically a coin flip. It's a little more critical on the higher count scenario without surrender available, because you'll have a max bet out there, but no matter what you're trying to put lipstick on a pig and it's a horribly negative expectation hand no matter what. Most counts are going to be close to one another in performance on this hand because I used extreme examples to make my point. I get a more precise composition dependent index and although I try to do it all in the most mentally untaxing manner, there are mental gymnastics involved. When doing the count, I am picturing "silos" that carry a given volume, and with my charts I am picturing the coloring of the zones for playing decisions.

    I suppose I could do a video demonstration of it if you wanted, noting what I'm doing and exactly why I am doing it. I enjoy its precision, its exactness. It's more than people are able or want or need to go, though. It's not like someone using whatever else can't easily pick up the slack to catch up with anything I can do by altering a variable, such as more time at the table, adding an extra hour or whatever, doing it with considerably easier methods.



  12. #12
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretariat View Post
    Here's a question that could be of interest to all. Considering your superior efficiency and your risk averse approach Tarzan, how many big bets do you keep in your active bankroll? Would also be nice to know how that ratio of big bets/bankroll changed over the years as you perfected your art.
    Over 200 range in recent years, I like lots of cushion, but I have always avoided carrying more than about 10% of my bankroll at any one place at any one time. I always think in terms of a trip bankroll for the day(s). This is due to some of the horror stories that have befallen others. You have a target on your back if you are stumbling around casinos carrying a wheelbarrow full of cash. My bankroll has grown steadily but halved out a couple of times along the way, very typical, and the reason why you need enough money backing you. No one is bullet proof, me included, and I've had occasion to walk into a hotel room of fellow counters and say, "Well, the greatest fucking card-counter in the world just got his ass kicked for $10,000 in about an hour!"

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks for the detailed answer Tarzan

    I was aware of your 23v45 concept as well as of the key card concept as you illustrated with the 15vT hand and the impact of the 6 especially when big bets are on the line.

    There’s no doubt that you have information to make the proper strategy deviations and even the proper bet amounts as you match Halves in the RC/TC department.

    My question was more about the exact number of cards. How do you know there are 14, 22, 32, 52 or whatever number cards left?

    You say you know the exact number of 6789s or maybe you’re just making allusion to ratios such as silo #2 vs silo #1 and vs silo #3. I am not sure.

    So, if the count is 6-2-0-8, and you know for example that silo #2 contains 22 cards, this means that you can deduct that silo #3 contains 24 tens and that silo #1 contains 16 low cards (2345s)

    Considering there are 8 aces left there are 22 (6789s that you counted separately ???) +24 (10s) +16 (2345s) +8 (A) for a total of 70 unplayed cards.

    I presumed that you counted the total number of 6789s separately (to get to 22), otherwise I don’t know how you can get an exact number of total cards or total cards in any silo, except from the aces.

    This would not take anything away from the precision of your system as knowing the exact number of cards left in any category (except from the aces) is not necessary. This is certainly better than approximate RCs/TCs ignoring (or almost ignoring) middle cards.

    That’s how I understand it but I’ll take your video offer any time.
    Last edited by Secretariat; 05-23-2022 at 10:20 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hi-Lo system with Ace side counts and 2, 3 side count
    By BJcountingmaster in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-27-2019, 06:25 PM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-16-2019, 11:38 PM
  3. Side-Counting Sevens: ...
    By ZenMaster_Flash in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-28-2018, 03:26 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-11-2008, 11:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.