Brick: Upgrading hi-lo.

[Don Schlesinger]

> What?! You don't have it yet?

Yes, he's the one! :-)

Don

[No name today]

> Yes, he's the one! :-)

> Don

May be, he lend it.

[ToAnyOne]

I have been trying to get this message across recently, and it didn't seem to get any attention. I will have more to say on this issue later on, but for now I would just like to add that this "small" difference in score is more dangerous than it seems because it hits directly where our biggest vulnerabilities lie.

TAO

[VerdugoJohn]

> Thanks for the depressing information.) I assumed (in
> the long run)the 2 and 7 would cancel out,thus giving
> them a value of .5,did you use hi-lo index numbers
> when running sims? As you know using the upgraded
> count will change some index numbers.

> Thanks,
> Brick

SIDE COUNTING 7's with Hi-Lo gives a boost, and i believe Mr C. posted here a method of adding side counts of 7's to improve Betting Correlation up to what RPC has (or better)...if you can cope with it...it may be stored in the Don's Domain Archives now...

I use Hi-Lo with side 7's on single deck and double deck games provided the games are not fast paced...if it is fast paced i just use plain old Hi-Lo...there are various ways of keeping track of 7's side count, currently I use letters...and i adjust the running count for bet sizing, plus use the seven side-counts with close calls on plays such as insurance, 16v10, 12v4, 12v5, 13v2...I'm sure the experts here will agree that i am not gaining much, but i like the feeling of being more involved and having added control when playing...

i'm just a vacation player, so Hi-Lo is what i stick with...if you plan to play a lot, then the higher level count systems are worthwhile maybe...

[Brick]

I play mostly 6 deck. Side counting sevens is too muck work for me); With practice, ignoring black 2's and 7's takes less effort with no adjustments except changing a few index numbers ,everything else remains the same. I was surprised to see Cacarulo's sims showing lower BC than hi-lo and still wondering what index strategy was used.

Thanks,
Brick

[Cacarulo]

> Thanks for the depressing information.) I assumed (in
> the long run)the 2 and 7 would cancel out,thus giving
> them a value of .5,did you use hi-lo index numbers
> when running sims? As you know using the upgraded
> count will change some index numbers.

The provided information is EOR-based. There were no sims involved.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Francis Salmon]

> Yes, I use the ones in BJA3 which are far better. For
> S17,DAS you can use the following:
> (A to T, m) -0.5794 0.3809 0.4339 0.5680 0.7274
> 0.4118 0.2823 -0.0033 -0.1731 -0.5121 0.1735

For the first time after two decades of playing have I made some study on EORs.Up to now I just trusted the books.I suspected that the EORs for ENHC might differ considerably from the hole-card values namely for the Ace because of the "lose all to natural"-rule.Now I did get differences but not in the way I expected.The Ace went even more negative (-0.60% and even -0.63% for RSA),on the other hand the Five hit the 0.8% mark (with DOA)!
The other values looked quite normal but I still hope my calculations are wrong, otherwise I will have to upgrade my count!

Francis Salmon

[Cacarulo]

> For the first time after two decades of playing have I
> made some study on EORs.Up to now I just trusted the
> books.I suspected that the EORs for ENHC might differ
> considerably from the hole-card values namely for the
> Ace because of the "lose all to
> natural"-rule.Now I did get differences but not
> in the way I expected.The Ace went even more negative
> (-0.60% and even -0.63% for RSA),on the other hand the
> Five hit the 0.8% mark (with DOA)!
> The other values looked quite normal but I still hope
> my calculations are wrong, otherwise I will have to
> upgrade my count!

> Francis Salmon

It's not that much for the five but the ace value is correct. This is what I get for 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,ENHC

EOR [A]  = -0.097572653258854% 

EOR [2]  =  0.059474080190843% 

EOR [3]  =  0.068699254736614% 

EOR [4]  =  0.087570090267930% 

EOR [5]  =  0.110253109144626% 

EOR [6]  =  0.072787251257362% 

EOR [7]  =  0.039566381941839% 

EOR [8]  = -0.006810733154647% 

EOR [9]  = -0.031000497317576% 

EOR [T]  = -0.075741570952032% 

Mean     = -0.613721130967062% 

SS       =  0.068419486992213% 

Sum(EORs)=  0.000000000000010%

The above are EORs for 6D so if you want EORs for 1D you need to multiply each EOR by 311/51.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Francis Salmon]

I just received a hint from MGP that EORs shouldn't include strategy variations and this is probably the reason why my number for the Five was so far off. My program performs automatic strategy changes based on card probabilities.
Many thanks for posting the correct values!Now, I can sleep quiet again.

Francis Salmon