lagavulin62: ego aside, here's my attempt tko preferred

[ToAnyOne]

> Actually, the concept of counting all the 7's as .5
> has been around almost as long as Red 7. In fact, most
> simulations actually do it this way (and give slightly
> inflated performance results) simply because the
> simulators are not set up to keep track of suits
> (although Norm has probably figured out a way around
> this by now).

> The only problem with counting 7's as .5 is that,
> strictly speaking, it transforms Red 7 into a level 2
> count, with added complexity.

First of all I think that anybody using red 7 should be aware of this issue, and make an enlightened decision because imo the difference is not at all marginal, the imprecision will result in that you will constantly be slightly underbetting or overbetting, and tho it will even out in the long run, in the short run it will increase the magnitude of swings, which is where we are most vulnerable.

I understand that the system I am proposing is not exactly simple because it contains a side count, but in this case the side count eliminates the need for TC conversion, and provides several additionnal side benefits. I think your comment about it being a level 2, doesn't apply here, because all 7's are counted as 1, it is just the total number of 7's seen that is devided by 2. And again, no need to TC and you have optimal precision as to when to first raise your bet, and good precision as to when to put max bet. This makes it clearly easier than say HO1 with Aces SC and a hell of a lot more powerful.

Contrary to the extra vulnerablity described in the first paragraph, this added precision will reduce the magnitude of the swings and therefore reduce ROR. (!)

TAO

P.S.: A little side point I would like to add that if I am using the term "magnitude of swings", rather than "variance", it is because there is a little nuance. For ex: Ties decrease variance, but does not affect the magnitude of swings, it only postpones the outcome for a round.

[AutomaticMonkey]

... I use Balanced Zen when playing Blackjack Switch (which I do as often as practical) because it more accurately describes the value of the ace in a game that pays even money for naturals. But you can use the RPC indices for Balanced Zen and you won't be all that far off.

If you are playing both SD and DD, don't you have to learn two sets of indices and BS anyway, even with a balanced count? I'd just as soon learn two sets that are very different than two that differ subtly. Plus the changes from S17 to H17. It's not too difficult for me; when I go out on a mission I print out the strategies for the games I'm planning on playing and study them on the plane or while driving. Flash card study isn't that hard to do when driving. And after about an hour of white-knuckling at the tables it starts to feel natural. But when I sit down at a shoe, I have to ask the dealer if it is six decks or eight. Go figure.

> Another obvious combination would be UBZ2/Zen. It is
> my understanding that George C. himself does this, or
> at least did so at one time. The only difference
> between the two counts is the tag for the 3.

> That being said, I have enough trouble learning one
> count, let alone two. In addition, it would be
> necessary to learn two sets of indices.

> The first thing anyone considering this should do is
> invest in some software and run some sims. Run the
> games you normally play at the stakes you normally
> would play, using the bet ramps you anticipate using.
> Then factor in the number of hours you expect to play,
> so you can come up with a real-world dollar figure of
> how much you will actually gain on a monthly or annual
> basis by using two systems.

> My guess is that, at this point, most people will
> abandon the project.

[koolipto]

> When I was waking up this morning, I just had an
> interesting idea to get the best of all the first
> level counts.
> If you are wondering weather to count KO or hi-lo or
> red seven, you could have it all and more by just
> counting hi-lo RC and keeping track of the amount of
> 7's seen.
> Then in order to know when to first raise your bet you
> add the hi-lo RC plus half of the 7's count; using IRC
> of 0 you raise your bet at +12 in 6 deck. Here you
> have the benefits of red 7, but vastly superior in
> precision because all 7's are worth .5, which is much
> more representative of the EOR than counting half the
> 7's as 0 and the other half as 1.
> Then in order to know when to put out max bet, you
> just add both counts, and you got KO, max bet at +24
> for 6 deck.
> When you want to know when to WO, you just use the
> hi-lo and ignore the side count.
> Then you can add multi-parameter tables such as stand
> on 14vT if the pack is short 1 1/2 sevens/deck. This
> can add up to .118 on the PE. Slight increase in IC as
> well.
> Lastly, combine this with a super 7 side bet and you
> are rocking.
> If you feel this is too sensitive information, feel
> free to bust the post, if not, all comments would be
> appreciated.
> Thanks,

> TAO

TAO,
Cac posted sim results on Hi-Lo with a seven side count in the "Best of the Masters" archives in Don's Domain. He counted sevens as an unbalanced count. Playing and insurance were based on the Hi-Lo count & betting decisions were based on the two counts combined. Sim results were impressive. As an example, SCORE with a 1x12 spread for 6D DOA DAS dealt 5/6 was 36.86 as compared to 34.84 for Hi-Lo. It's definitely a post you should look at. By the way, thank you for your previous comments. Koo

[Francis Salmon]

> TAO,
> Cac posted sim results on Hi-Lo with a seven side
> count in the "Best of the Masters" archives
> in Don's Domain. He counted sevens as an unbalanced
> count.

How can a side count be unbalanced?

> Playing and insurance were based on the Hi-Lo
> count & betting decisions were based on the two
> counts combined.

Doesn't make sense to me.Insurance should also be based on the two counts combined because Hilo IC is rather low.

Sim results were impressive. As an
> example, SCORE with a 1x12 spread for 6D DOA DAS dealt
> 5/6 was 36.86 as compared to 34.84 for Hi-Lo.

Certainly interesting for those who have no trouble keeping a side count.

Francis Salmon

[koolipto]

Francis, being relatively new to the community, I was not certain if it was appropriate to post full details of posts from a paid for web site. I'll expand (noting that I have never contemplated using this count as I use KO), but I encourage anyone interested to get the original post.

> How can a side count be unbalanced?
Pivot of 4? Try the Brett Harris formula.

> Doesn't make sense to me.Insurance should also be
> based on the two counts combined because Hilo IC is
> rather low.
As I take it, the point of Cac's system was to improve the betting efficiency of Hi-Lo, not the playing or insurance efficiency. I think that was the direction TAO was going also. One of the attractive features of Cac's approach is no new index numbers.

> Certainly interesting for those who have no trouble
> keeping a side count.
I can't be included in that group. However, I am still soaking up everything I can. Rgds, Koolipto

[ToAnyOne]

> How can a side count be unbalanced?

> Doesn't make sense to me.Insurance should also be
> based on the two counts combined because Hilo IC is
> rather low.

> Sim results were impressive. As an

> Certainly interesting for those who have no trouble
> keeping a side count.

> Francis Salmon

Koo is wright, the focus is BC, and not IC or PE, tho there is a little extra possible gain in both those ereas if you make the appropriate changes.

I have not seen Cac's post as I am not a DD member. If you check my post "The best of all worlds", I describe a way of combining a running count with a countdown of 7's in a way that you would benefit of the best attributes of all the major level 1 counts, and the synergie would work in such a way as to reduce the amount of work by eliminating the need for TC conversion of neither the main count or the side count. And this will result in the best possible level 1 count, including the ones with an ace side count or any other side count.

And this is very ironic, since the seven is the third least valuable card in the deck (for BC), and it actually plays in this system the biggest part any card can play in the acheivement of the best BC for a L1.

Nevertheless, it is still logical because ignoring the 7's is the biggest weakness of hi-lo, and counting them as one (KO) is no improvement, and neither is counting some of them as one and some as zero ... and counting them as .5 makes it a level 2.

SOLUTION: Just segregate it and give it whatever weight it needs according to what information you are trying to obtain from the counts.

I'm sorry if this is a copy of Cacarulo's work, I would certainly be interested in knowing weather it actually is the same idea and/or if we are on the same wavelenght on these issues. I try to re-invent the wheel, but I know that it (the wheel) is nothing new and has been around for a long time, so I make no claim.

TAO