Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Ace – Five Count System: Two Indexes vs One Results in Higher Cost Play ???

  1. #1
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Ace – Five Count System: Two Indexes vs One Results in Higher Cost Play ???

    Hello All:

    After several years hiatus from BJ, I’ve recently fully retired and am ready to pick BJ back up. However, instead of the Hi Lo count system, I’ve decided to switch and learn / practice / hone my skills with Michael Shackleford’s simplified Ace Five count system BUT with a couple of changes…. use true count instead of the simple running count AND use the 2 most impactful indexes. This change from Hi Lo w/ indexes will reduce cerebral efforts while playing. (I know that my long term $ /hr will be negative, but as long as it’s minimum I’m OK with that.) Also, to not sweat the heat, I intend my max spread to be 4:1. I’ve quickly perused and believe most local casinos still have 3:2 blackjack, H17 DAS (but not all have RSA).

    Running 4b iterations on Norm’s CVCX simulator, using True Count Ace-Five counting (should I coin this TCAF?), and simple basic strategy only (no indexes) my “cost” to play is $4.19 / hr. But, if I include a single index of 16v10 hit TC<0 (i.e. instead of always hitting 16v10, only hit when the TC is negative), my “cost” reduces substantially (comparatively speaking) to $3.54 / hr. When I remove the 16v10 index from the simulation, and replace it with a single 9v3 DD >= 0 index, my cost changes from the simple basic strategy of $4.19 /hr to $4.03 /hr. I think that this is great… it then stands to reason that if I include BOTH indexes (16v10 hit<0 and 9v3 DD >= 0) then my cost to play should be lower than $3.54 / hr (which was the single index 16v10 benchmark). HOWEVER, a 4b iterations CVCX simulation reveals when I do this my cost to play is in fact $3.61 / hr, which is a HIGHER cost to play than the single 16v10 index.

    So my question is this: Why do both indexes combined result in a higher cost to play than a single index? This seems counter-intuitive to me.

    Regards,
    SteinMeister

  2. #2
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    See which has a higher SCORE. It may be that with your settings once produces more risk.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Further suggestion: If you're going to start with just two or three indices, insurance has to be one of them! Surely use it before 9 vs. 3.

    Don

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    for most systems, I'd totally agree with Don. But I think you are describing a count that only recognizes the Ace and Five. if it completely ignores all Tens, then it cannot adequately estimate for insurance.

    Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    See which has a higher SCORE. It may be that with your settings once produces more risk.

    Thanks Norm and Don for responding.

    CVCX shows the SCORE is zero on all accounts:

    Basic Strategy, Ace-Five Count, NO indices: Win/Hr = $-4.19 SCORE = 0

    Basic Strategy, Ace-Five Count, 16v10 index only: Win/Hr = $-3.54 SCORE = 0

    Basic Strategy, Ace-Five Count, 9v3 index only: Win/Hr = $-4.03 SCORE = 0

    Basic Strategy, Ace-Five Count, both 16v10 & 9v3 indices: Win/Hr = $-3.61 SCORE = 0

    (I have not yet worked up the insurance analysis (good tip, thanks Don)).

    It appears to me that since all scenarios (above) resulting in the SCORE = 0, and that despite the counter-intuitiveness of it all, the best strategy is (in this case) a sole 16v10 index hit<0 is more advantageous than combining it with a 9v3 DD >= 0.

    Regards,
    SteinMeister

  6. #6
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Looking at overall results of four billion rounds of blackjack is actually not anywhere near enough to compare two indices, which is why index generators don't do this.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole View Post
    for most systems, I'd totally agree with Don. But I think you are describing a count that only recognizes the Ace and Five. if it completely ignores all Tens, then it cannot adequately estimate for insurance.

    Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
    Yes, you're right. In general, it's a fairly useless count.

    Don

  8. #8
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Yes, you're right. In general, it's a fairly useless count.

    Don

    Gentlemen, you are all correct w/ regarding using insurance index w/ the Ace-Five count system... 4billion iterations show -$4.19 $/hr with no indices, and -$4.15 $/hr with only insurance index at TC +3.

    Norm or Don: I don't have an index generator, if I use CVCX simulator to establish the indices for Ace-Five count, how many iterations should I use for each analysis?

  9. #9
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    That really doesn't work well. For each index, index generators focus on one at a time. This is very different from running two sims to see a difference. The code used in simulation and generation doesn't look much alike.
    Last edited by Norm; 02-15-2023 at 07:34 AM.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  10. #10
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    That really doesn't work well. For each index, index generators focus on one at a time. This is very different from running two sims to see a difference. The code used in simulation and generation doesn't look much alike.

    Thanks Norm.
    I did find the index generator in CVData, but it's not generating index numbers. I sent you an email with more detail regarding this.

    Regards,
    SteinMeister

  11. #11
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    You don't have a license. Problem is, you are trying to make something out of a bad count. The playing efficiency is around 0.05, which makes it pretty much useless for indices.
    Last edited by Norm; 02-15-2023 at 02:53 PM.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-16-2021, 05:26 PM
  2. More Indices or Higher Level Count
    By Midwest Player in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 09-22-2020, 11:41 AM
  3. Nine Count System or Fletcher System?
    By neocacher in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-09-2014, 09:20 AM
  4. newtobj: Cost of this play
    By newtobj in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-27-2005, 05:38 AM
  5. Electric Kid: Sim Results for Ouchez's "Predator System"
    By Electric Kid in forum Heartland 21
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-28-2003, 05:32 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.