See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 27

Thread: Side counting aces in HI-LO

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1


    4 out of 4 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Side counting aces in HI-LO

    Continuing with the ASC topic, I am going to show you four different ways to do it and the SCORES that we can obtain with any of them.

    A)

    PC = -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 (IRC = 0) (HI-LO)
    SC = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (IRC = -24)

    In this case we use the secondary count of aces for insurance bets only. We adjust the RC by doing "PC + SC". In this way the value of the ace will be ZERO increasing the HI-LO IC from 0.7647 to 0.8674.
    If you don't feel comfortable adding aces starting from -24 you can also do it by subtracting aces but starting the count at +24 and adjusting the RC to "PC - SC". The two forms are equivalent.
    The new index for insurance is no longer "+3" but "-1".
    For everything else we continue using HI-LO (PC).

    B)

    PC = -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 (IRC = 0) (HI-LO)
    SC = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (IRC = -24)


    Here we also use the secondary count of aces only for insurance bets. The RC is calculated as "PC + 2*SC". Now the ace will be ONE increasing the IC of HI-LO from 0.7647 to 0.8908.
    Same as above, if you prefer to subtract aces you can change the value of the ace in SC to -1 and the IRC to +24. The RC is adjusted by doing "PC - 2*SC".
    The new index for insurance is no longer "+3" but "-5".
    For everything else we continue using HI-LO (PC).

    C)

    PC = 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 (IRC = -24)
    SC = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (IRC = -24)

    Here the secondary count of aces is used only for betting purposes using RC = PC - SC. For playing we use the primary count (PC). This is an unbalanced count in which we
    can use the indices of HI-LO minus 4. Insurance index would be "-1" (+3 - 4) , 16vT would be "-4" (0 - 4) and so on.

    D)

    PC = -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 (IRC = 0) (HI-LO)
    SC = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (IRC = 0)

    This is the case of "dynamic insurance" explained in other posts.
    The difference with the previous ones is that it is NOT necessary to adjust the RC.
    The secondary count is kept and depending on the aces that have come out, the value of the index is reduced accordingly.
    If we look closely the reduction in the index ALSO occurs in cases A, B and C.
    The reduction in the indices has to do with the imbalance of the count systems used. I think this is the explanation that many were requiring.

    Finally, I do not want to forget the old-fashioned method that many people still use. This is the case in which the RC is adjusted
    depending on whether we are above or below the expected average number of aces.
    I don't really care to explain it as I find it totally awkward to use and more prone to mistakes due to the additions and subtractions required for balancing.
    In my opinion cases A and B are far superior.

    Code:
    SCORES (6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,4.5/6,Play All,R22 indices,50 billion rounds,heads up)
    
    HI-LO alone
    
        1-12   1-16 
        21.15  25.00
    
    HI-LO w/ASC
    
        1-12   1-16 
    A   22.01  25.90
    B   22.15  26.04
    C   22.53  26.42
    D   21.51  25.36
    Enjoy.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

    PS: I forgot to mention that the above data is for 6D. If you need a different number of decks you can
    change the number 24 to 4*decks.
    Last edited by Cacarulo; 06-10-2022 at 07:58 PM.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks I was looking for something like this post.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by LoKee View Post
    Thanks I was looking for something like this post.
    You're welcome.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  4. #4
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,154


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Cacarulo View Post
    Continuing with the ASC topic, I am going to show you four different ways to do it and the SCORES
    Sincerely,
    Cac
    I like your Method D a lot but am skeptical too. Earlier you showed 6-deck numbers as follows:
    Six decks
    Generic index: +3

    Dynamic index:
    12 or more aces came up: +2
    17 or more aces came up: +1
    19 or more aces came up: 0

    However, 6-decks are a rarity. Can you also show this method for 8-decks to convince me?

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by aceside View Post
    I like your Method D a lot but am skeptical too. Earlier you showed 6-deck numbers as follows:
    Six decks
    Generic index: +3

    Dynamic index:
    12 or more aces came up: +2
    17 or more aces came up: +1
    19 or more aces came up: 0

    However, 6-decks are a rarity. Can you also show this method for 8-decks to convince me?
    6-decks are not a rarity.

    Code:
    
    Eight decks
    Generic index:
    +3 if aces >=  1 (prob: 0.029611)
    
    Dynamic index:
    +2 if aces >= 18 (prob: 0.022279)
    +1 if aces >= 23 (prob: 0.007769)
     0 if aces >= 25 (prob: 0.004744)
    -1 if aces >= 27 (prob: 0.000849)
    -2 if aces >= 29 (prob: 0.000106)
    -3 if aces >= 30 (prob: 0.000025)
    
    If you look carefully, you will notice that a dynamic index less than +2 is very unlikely to occur.

    Sincerely,
    Cac
    Last edited by Cacarulo; 06-10-2022 at 07:40 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,154


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Cacarulo View Post
    6-decks are not a rarity.

    Code:
    
    Eight decks
    Generic index:
    +3 if aces >=  1 (prob: 0.029611)
    
    Dynamic index:
    +2 if aces >= 18 (prob: 0.022279)
    +1 if aces >= 23 (prob: 0.007769)
     0 if aces >= 25 (prob: 0.004744)
    -1 if aces >= 27 (prob: 0.000849)
    -2 if aces >= 29 (prob: 0.000106)
    -3 if aces >= 30 (prob: 0.000025)
    
    If you look carefully, you will notice that a dynamic index less than +2 is very unlikely to occur.

    Sincerely,
    Cac
    I don't quite understand your probability part, but your probability numbers seem small.
    Let me give you my estimate of the true count (TC) probability.
    For a 6-deck game with a 4.5/6 pen, the probability of TC>+3 for any density of aces should be about 18%.

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Aceside, are you saying the frequency of true count greater than +3 is 18%? That is way off. It’s closer to 3% maybe even a little less

  8. #8
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,154


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Green21 View Post
    Aceside, are you saying the frequency of true count greater than +3 is 18%? That is way off. It’s closer to 3% maybe even a little less
    I just re-estimated this number and found that my number of 18% is way off. This also means that my earlier estimate of the insurance flat-bet number is way off too.

    Don's number looks fine, but Gramazaka's graph numbers are hard to read. What are these numbers?

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by aceside View Post
    I just re-estimated this number and found that my number of 18% is way off. This also means that my earlier estimate of the insurance flat-bet number is way off too.

    Don's number looks fine, but Gramazaka's graph numbers are hard to read. What are these numbers?
    I would like to understand your estimation techniques, as this figure can be accurately computed using sims or combinatorial analysis
    Chance favors the prepared mind

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Random probability of HiLo running count 4 with 78 cards remaining from 6 decks = .04970; true count = 2.67
    Random probability of HiLo running count 5 with 78 cards remaining from 6 decks = .04501; true count = 3.33

    Cacarulo could verify these values.

    However, end of round probabilities resulting from dealing blackjack may not be entirely random so these are probably best determined by simulation rather than combinatorial analysis.

    A simple example is HiLo running count of +4 with 308 cards remaining from 6 decks given 1 player versus dealer. Random prob=.02121. Actual prob=0 because first round will never end with RC = +4.

    As deal progresses variables such as number of players and players' strategies also affect end of round shoe composition. Just how much all of this varies end of round probs from truly random values could only realistically be determined by simulation.

    k_c

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
    Random probability of HiLo running count 4 with 78 cards remaining from 6 decks = .04970; true count = 2.67
    Random probability of HiLo running count 5 with 78 cards remaining from 6 decks = .04501; true count = 3.33

    Cacarulo could verify these values.

    However, end of round probabilities resulting from dealing blackjack may not be entirely random so these are probably best determined by simulation rather than combinatorial analysis.

    A simple example is HiLo running count of +4 with 308 cards remaining from 6 decks given 1 player versus dealer. Random prob=.02121. Actual prob=0 because first round will never end with RC = +4.

    As deal progresses variables such as number of players and players' strategies also affect end of round shoe composition. Just how much all of this varies end of round probs from truly random values could only realistically be determined by simulation.

    k_c
    Yes, the numbers are correct, although it is not clear what the original question was and why the probability of a Hi-Lo TC >= +3 is being discussed. I don't know what it has to do with my post about dynamic indices.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  12. #12
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,154


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by iCountNTrack View Post
    I would like to understand your estimation techniques, as this figure can be accurately computed using sims or combinatorial analysis
    Basically, I used the combinatorial analysis technique as developed by k_c, but I also infused my sampling techniques too. Given a fixed true count number, I sampled the TC frequencies at three different card dealing depths, 1/6, 3/6, and 5/6, and with these, it is not hard to find that the TC frequency is an exponential function of the dealing depth. Finally, I averaged all these frequencies by integrating over the exponential function.

    I am still learning from k_c.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    5.21%.

    Don

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Does side counting aces benefit hi lo or wong halves?
    By blueman in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-22-2019, 06:42 PM
  2. 11 v T ENHC side counting aces
    By Meistro123 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-11-2018, 07:07 AM
  3. Red Seven: Side Counting Aces
    By BlackjackFeign in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2016, 02:38 AM
  4. Side counting aces tko method
    By Vandammage in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-18-2015, 09:12 PM

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.