NEW Card Counting System! (CAC2 + CAC2 Enhanced)

[IDKMyUsername]

Hi all, I was reading through the docs and noticed there was no deviation for 15vA, 15v8, A6v2, A5v3, 9sv7, 7sv8, 3sv8, 2sv8, 4sv4. Anyone know why that might be?

I can see why the pairs might be skipped as they are a pretty unique hand, so you wont be using that deviation much. But the 2 15 hands seem pretty common so I'm surprised they aren't on there.

Some of these deviations are in the FULL index tables which can be viewed through CVBJ/CVCX. I don't know of any other way to view the full index tables, but you could make your own stand alone full index table using excel/sheets.

[Cacarulo]

Hi all, I was reading through the docs and noticed there was no deviation for 15vA, 15v8, A6v2, A5v3, 9sv7, 7sv8, 3sv8, 2sv8, 4sv4. Anyone know why that might be?

I can see why the pairs might be skipped as they are a pretty unique hand, so you wont be using that deviation much. But the 2 15 hands seem pretty common so I'm surprised they aren't on there.

Sorry, I hadn't seen this message earlier. The reason why not all indices are included in the document is due to a selection criterion.
The 52 plays (R52) that contribute the most to the SCORE are the ones published. It’s not about how frequently they occur; they may have
a very high index that is unlikely to be reached. Nonetheless, if I recall correctly, the complete tables are available in CVData.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Waterbelly]

Hey Guys - I just wanted to report that CAC2 is the real deal. I’ve done a few sims in CVCX and I made a few simplifications to the system to suit my needs and abilities. First, in calculating the true count, I use whole deck resolution for estimating shoes and half deck for pitch. Secondly, I rounded CAC2 full indices very slightly. I’ve never not used rounded indices, having spent a bulk of my time on using KO preferred or Norm’s FELT. But this time I used more granular rounding, and have groups of indices in +2, +7, etc. Like Cac says above, there is a penalty in using whole deck resolution compared to the original half deck - however, with my rounded full indices and full deck resolution, it does edge out the original CAC2/R22 with half deck resolution.

But how does it compare with the other strategies with similar rounding, etc? Please see below for the SCORE comparisons. CAC2’s superiority carries through here as well.

CVCX Sims (Rounded Full Indices with Whole Deck Shoe Resolution etc.)

6D, S17 DAS RSA, 82%, 1-6, Play-All
CAC2-Ultimate	25.07
Halves-CAC2	24.90
Zen-CAC2	24.21
FELT-CAC2	24.01

DD, S17 DAS RSA, 64%, 1-4, Play-All
CAC2-Ultimate	45.75
Zen-CAC2	45.60
Halves-CAC2	45.44
FELT-CAC2	44.79

And I am making progress at increasing my speed and learning the indices. I’ve never learned such a large index set before having always done something close to the Catch 22 - but using CV index tests, it really accelerates your learning.

Care to share your modifications?

[Waterbelly]

No problem.

Sincerely,
Cac

Hi Cac,

I just purchased the system this week. You have a spot where you mention surrendering every time you have a 16 verse dealer 9. This might sound like a dumb question, but why then do you include an index play for 16 versus 9? Again I'm sorry if this sounds like a silly question

[Cacarulo]

Hi Cac,

I just purchased the system this week. You have a spot where you mention surrendering every time you have a 16 verse dealer 9. This might sound like a dumb question, but why then do you include an index play for 16 versus 9? Again I'm sorry if this sounds like a silly question

Hi, it’s not a silly question, and it’s worth clarifying what I meant in the point you mentioned. Initially, surrendering with 16v9 is basic strategy for 6D but not for 2D. When considering a set of plays like R22+FAB4, 16v9 would evidently be excluded from that set, and in the case that this play comes up, you would use basic strategy. Most basic strategy plays have an index for each counting system. If you know the index, it’s better to use it rather than just playing basic strategy.

The point you mentioned specifically refers to 2D. If you were playing basic strategy alone, the correct play would be to hit instead of surrendering. However, if you are using a counting system, surrendering is preferable as it results in a better SCORE.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Dog Hand]

Hi, it’s not a silly question, and it’s worth clarifying what I meant in the point you mentioned. Initially, surrendering with 16v9 is basic strategy for 6D but not for 2D. When considering a set of plays like R22+FAB4, 16v9 would evidently be excluded from that set, and in the case that this play comes up, you would use basic strategy. Most basic strategy plays have an index for each counting system. If you know the index, it’s better to use it rather than just playing basic strategy.

The point you mentioned specifically refers to 2D. If you were playing basic strategy alone, the correct play would be to hit instead of surrendering. However, if you are using a counting system, surrendering is preferable as it results in a better SCORE.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

Waterbelly,

One other reason for such an index: you may have a 16 vs. 9 that you cannot surrender. For example, you're dealt 9,9 vs. 9, so you split. If the next card is a 7, you now have 16 vs. 9 but cannot surrender.

Even more common is to hit a small total and arrive at 16 vs. 9.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

[KrishnaSentMe]

Hi Caraculo, thanks for inventing this counting method, really love it. My question on using method 3 to side count is - can we use A as -2 and 5 as +3 as far as tag value is concern and that way we don’t have to do another set of calculation to adjust RC.

[KrishnaSentMe]

I use a combination of R22 and R52 to not caught too much attention but still uses the one which happen quiet frequent. See my thread here. [REDACTED]

[Cacarulo]

Waterbelly,

One other reason for such an index: you may have a 16 vs. 9 that you cannot surrender. For example, you're dealt 9,9 vs. 9, so you split. If the next card is a 7, you now have 16 vs. 9 but cannot surrender.

Even more common is to hit a small total and arrive at 16 vs. 9.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Hi Doghand,

That’s correct, but I think he’s referring to why there’s an index for surrendering (not for standing) if you’re always supposed to surrender according to basic strategy.
The index exists for those who want to play better than what basic strategy dictates.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

Hi Caraculo, thanks for inventing this counting method, really love it. My question on using method 3 to side count is - can we use A as -2 and 5 as +3 as far as tag value is concern and that way we don’t have to do another set of calculation to adjust RC.

Hi KrishnaSentMe,

I apologize if I don't elaborate too much on my response, but as you already know, this is a private system, and I wouldn’t want it to stop being so.

That said, regarding your question, the answer is that it wouldn’t be advisable for two reasons:

1) Because we would be talking about a different system
2) It would lose the playing efficiency value of CAC2. That other system is less efficient than CAC2 in terms of PE but better in terms of BE.


The idea is to combine better Playing Efficiency (PE) with better Betting Efficiency (BE) in order to achieve a better SCORE.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[KrishnaSentMe]

Thanks and I sincerely apologize sharing info that I should not be!

[KrishnaSentMe]

Also just so I understand you are saying that CAC2/A5 is better suited for BE but not for PE and I should use CAC2/A5 for betting purpose but CAC2 for playing purpose?

Is it possible for you to share your email id so I can ask question which should not be public and respect copy right?

[Cacarulo]

Also just so I understand you are saying that CAC2/A5 is better suited for BE but not for PE and I should use CAC2/A5 for betting purpose but CAC2 for playing purpose?

Is it possible for you to share your email id so I can ask question which should not be public and respect copy right?

My email is in the document, but I see you just found it :-)
As for your question, you're absolutely correct. I'll respond via email shortly.

Sincerely,
Cac