# Thread: Side counting aces in HI-LO

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.

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

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Cacarulo
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?

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

Sincerely,
Cac

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
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

6. 0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Cacarulo
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. 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. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
5.21%.

Don

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by DSchles
5.21%.

Don
Pen 4.5/6

10. 0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Green21
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?

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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