IC Seeker: IC Calculation

[IC Seeker]

I've been using a spreadsheet I downloaded from BjMath.com named bcpeic35v97.xls to calculate IC's for various counts. I ran into the following numbers, however, that have me a bit puzzled:

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 produces an IC of 100% (Correct)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 produces an IC of 100% (???)

Is the value associated with tens irrelevant in calculating the IC?

Thanks for any feedback...

[Magician]

Insurance correlation (IC) is only defined for balanced counts. Richard Reid's spreadsheet converts your unbalanced count to an equivalent balanced count before calculating the IC. For any system where tens are counted as one thing while non-tens are counted as another the equivalent balanced count is:

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 -9 (Balanced Ten Count)

which has an IC of 100%. The unique thing about this system:

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 (Unbalanced Ten Count)

is you can use it to make perfect insurance bets based on the running count alone (take insurance when RC >= 2*decks).

So no, it's not a bug.

[IC Seeker]

> Insurance correlation (IC) is only defined
> for balanced counts. Richard Reid's
> spreadsheet converts your unbalanced count
> to an equivalent balanced count before
> calculating the IC. For any system where
> tens are counted as one thing while non-tens
> are counted as another the equivalent
> balanced count is:

> A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
> 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 -9 (Balanced Ten Count)

> which has an IC of 100%. The unique thing
> about this system:

> A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 (Unbalanced Ten Count)

> is you can use it to make perfect insurance
> bets based on the running count alone (take
> insurance when RC >= 2*decks).

> So no, it's not a bug.

Thanks for clearing that up. So if I enter the KO card values (also unbalanced):

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1

The IC of 78% the spreadsheet quotes is actually the IC of true-counted KO (TKO).

Also, shouldn't insurance be taken at RC >= (4 X Decks) for the Unbalanced Ten Count?

Thanks for your help...

[Magician]

> Thanks for clearing that up. So if I enter
> the KO card values (also unbalanced):

> A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
> -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1

> The IC of 78% the spreadsheet quotes is
> actually the IC of true-counted KO (TKO).

Does TKO set IRC = -pivot, use true count conversion and indices which resemble regular Hi-Lo indices minus four? Then, yes.

Be sure to read Unbalance True Count Proof by Brett Harris.

BC, PE and IC figures for unbalanced counts should be taken with a grain of salt. They are more like upper bounds.

> Also, shouldn't insurance be taken at RC
> >= (4 X Decks) for the Unbalanced Ten
> Count?

Right. Just testing you. ;-)

> Thanks for your help...

No problem.

[Adam N. Subtractum]

"BC, PE and IC figures for unbalanced counts should be taken with a grain of salt. They are more like upper bounds."

Perhaps for PE, and IC, but these statements are certainly not true for BC.

ANS

[Magician]

> "BC, PE and IC figures for unbalanced
> counts should be taken with a grain of salt.
> They are more like upper bounds."

> Perhaps for PE, and IC, but these statements
> are certainly not true for BC.

Why not? An unbalanced count in running count mode tends to underestimate advantage early in the deck and overestimate late in the deck. It's only as good as its equivalent balanced count at the pivot. Don't you agree?

[Adam N. Subtractum]

> ...It's only as good as its
> equivalent balanced count at the pivot.
> Don't you agree?

Actually, I do agree. Without getting into the details, I'll refer you to the extensive work done by Dr. Brett Harris and T-Hopper on this topic.

ANS