Cac,
Many years ago, on BJ21, you posted about using HiLo and an ace side count, and how the RC should be adjusted for various plays. I have been unable to find that post on BJ21 because of its limited search feature. If you have a copy, could you please post it here?
And if you don't mind me asking, what brought you back to forumland after a hiatus of many years?
Thanks.
Email: [email protected]
Later I will post something related to side counting aces (or any other card) with any card counting system.Originally Posted by 21forme
I think Don tempted me to participate and then I got an invitation from Norman. I think they both got me back. At first I was a little reluctant but these days my other obligations allow me to make time to participate in this forum.
Sincerely,
Cac
Long-awaited. I especially hope to see the HiLo+ASC.
if possible, please also do the HiLo+7.
Thank you in advance.
Email: [email protected]
Green Chip: Card Counting
Ace Side Count Methods for playing insurance
Posted By: Cacarulo on 21 May 01, 2:10 pm
Hi,
I don't like much the method of adjusting the RC by counting the excess or deficiency of aces. A better and more accurate method for me has to do with the use of unbalanced counts although this is not new. Let me explain the idea with two different methods:
Hi-Lo values the ace as "-1" which is no good for insurance. The value that correlates best for insurance decisions is "+1" but even with a value of "0" you will have a good choice with less mental effort.
a) Hi-Lo = -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 -1
b) Hi-Lo + Ace = 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 -1
c) Hi-Lo + 2*Ace = +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 0 0 -1
Let's call method #1 to "Hi-Lo + Ace" and method #2 to "Hi-Lo + 2*Ace".
As I said method #2 is the most precise but there's not much difference with method #1. Let's see what happens with the correlations of these counts:
Correlations
+---------------+---------------+
| Method #1 | Method #2 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Hi-Lo | Hi-Lo + Ace | Hi-Lo + 2*Ace |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 1D | 0.788535 | 0.871672 | 0.890334 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 2D | 0.774058 | 0.869093 | 0.890604 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 4D | 0.767023 | 0.867827 | 0.890738 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 6D | 0.764706 | 0.867409 | 0.890782 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 8D | 0.763554 | 0.867201 | 0.890804 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Now, for using these counts you will need some indices that of course will be different than the ones used in Hi-Lo without a side count of aces:
Indices
+---------------+---------------+
| Method #1 | Method #2 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Hi-Lo | Hi-Lo + Ace | Hi-Lo + 2*Ace |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 1D | 1.416667 | -1.969697 | -5.005747 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 2D | 2.375000 | -1.600601 | -5.104520 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 4D | 2.854167 | -1.418535 | -5.152661 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 6D | 3.013889 | -1.358209 | -5.168529 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| 8D | 3.093750 | -1.328113 | -5.176430 |
+----+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The last thing you need to know is how to use these indices but first you will need to keep a secondary count of aces as follows:
+---------------+-------------------+
| Method #1 | Method #2 |
+---------------+-------------------+
| Hi-Lo + Ace | Hi-Lo + 2*Ace |
+----+---------------+-------------------+
| 1D | 4 - #A(seen) | 8 - 2 * #A(seen) |
+----+---------------+-------------------+
| 2D | 8 - #A(seen) | 16 - 2 * #A(seen) |
+----+---------------+-------------------+
| 4D | 16 - #A(seen) | 32 - 2 * #A(seen) |
+----+---------------+-------------------+
| 6D | 24 - #A(seen) | 48 - 2 * #A(seen) |
+----+---------------+-------------------+
| 8D | 32 - #A(seen) | 64 - 2 * #A(seen) |
+----+---------------+-------------------+
If we use method #1 we will buy insurance if
TC (#1) = [ RC (Hi-Lo) - RC (#1) ] / DR >= index (#1)
If we use method #2 we will buy insurance if
TC (#2) = [ RC (Hi-Lo) - RC (#2) ] / DR >= index (#2)
Suppose we decided to use method #2 in a 2D game. There's one deck remaining (DR), Hi-Lo RC is +3 and we have seen 3 aces. Should we buy insurance?
RC (#2) = 16 - 2 * 3 = 10
TC (#2) = (3 - 10) / 1 = -7
Index (#2) = -5.104520
So -7 is not >= -5.104520. Hence, we don't buy insurance.
If we used method #1 we would have:
RC (#1) = 8 - 3 = 5
TC (#1) = (3 - 5) / 1 = -2
Index (#1) = -1.600601
-2 is not >= -1.600601. Thus, we don't buy.
Notice that if we did not use an ace side count we would incorrectly buy insurance since Hi-Lo TC (+3) >= 2.375000.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks