I have used RPC for nearly 30 years and really do not want to change if I don't have to. Can anyone offer insight into variations of indices needed for RPC compared to those in Katarina's excellent book? TIA to all who can help.
I have used RPC for nearly 30 years and really do not want to change if I don't have to. Can anyone offer insight into variations of indices needed for RPC compared to those in Katarina's excellent book? TIA to all who can help.
> I have used RPC for nearly 30 years and really do not
> want to change if I don't have to. Can anyone offer
> insight into variations of indices needed for RPC
> compared to those in Katarina's excellent book? TIA to
> all who can help.
I see your 30 years and raise you two! :-) In general, for regular BJ, the RPC indices (with true count reckoned by dividing by half decks) are all very close (within one, or the same) to the Hi-Lo indices. While I can't say with certainty that that would also be the case for SP21, I can't see why there would be much difference.
Don
> I see your 30 years and raise you two! :-) In general,
> for regular BJ, the RPC indices (with true count
> reckoned by dividing by half decks) are all very close
> (within one, or the same) to the Hi-Lo indices. While
> I can't say with certainty that that would also be the
> case for SP21, I can't see why there would be much
> difference.
> Don
Don, I am also a long time RPC user. Given the fact that the removal value for the 7 is closer to neutral for SP21 and the 8 has a somewhat negative removal value, I have reassigned 7 to a value of 0 from +1 and have changed the 8 from 0 to -1. Other than that, I am using all the other card values from RPC. I have not run a simulation yet, but my instincts tell me that this will produce a more accurate count than using standard RPC. Your thoughts on that would be appreciated. Having said that, I agree with you that the should not be any significant difference in results between hi-lo and rpc when using Walker's indices.
> I have used RPC for nearly 30 years and really do not
> want to change if I don't have to. Can anyone offer
> insight into variations of indices needed for RPC
> compared to those in Katarina's excellent book? TIA to
> all who can help.
I use RPC for shoe blackjack too. Problem is, in SP21 the 7 is a neutral card, so counting it will definitely hurt you.
> I use RPC for shoe blackjack too. Problem is, in SP21
> the 7 is a neutral card, so counting it will
> definitely hurt you.
You are correct. The 7 has minimal negative removal value (-.04) according to Walker. But what if you modify RPC and make 7=0 and make 8=(-1). Seems to me that may solve the problem. Any thoughts Mr. Schlessinger?
You would need to start here with a RC = - 48 (6*4*(-2)). Curiously, due to the nature of these specific effects of removal, you won?t get better rewards in betting correlation than its colleague, the one-level Hi-lo count. On the other hand, expect a better playing efficiency in the range of what?s a normal difference for regular blackjack between these two counts.
Sincerely,
Zf
> You are correct. The 7 has minimal negative removal
> value (-.04) according to Walker. But what if you
> modify RPC and make 7=0 and make 8=(-1). Seems to me
> that may solve the problem. Any thoughts Mr.
> Schlesinger?
Yes, yours seems like an intelligent alteration for SP21, which is not to say that there may be even better level-2 counts, more suitable for this.
Don
I have used here Kat?s published eor?s (with three decimals).
Hi-Lo RPC Yours
0.290 1 1 1
0.400 1 2 2
0.562 1 2 2
0.651 1 2 2
0.400 1 2 2
0.040 0 1 0
-0.210 0 0 -1
-0.170 0 0 0
-0.438 -1 -2 -2
-0.438 -1 -2 -2
-0.438 -1 -2 -2
-0.733 -1 -2 -2
Corr. 0.956 0.956 0.968
That?s a clear improvement over Hi-Lo and RPC, both counts matching each other, btw, as I said below on another post of the thread.
Sincerely,
Zf
But don't hold your breath!!!
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks