For HL player who refuses to switch to KO use 5m9c as a side count to HL

[bjanalyst]

Based on the clarifications you provided years ago, all your systems are based on "CC" which is trivial. Your measurements on various CC are thus trivial as well.

In your words, CC = Correlation Coefficient between the tag values of the (derived) count and the EoR (Effects of Removal).

Compared to Halves which doesn't restrict the tag values to 1, 0, -1. The tag value of Halves can be close to ideal tag value in nature without any side count modifications. If SCORE is good, then a proposed new counting system is good.

What you are quoting is the EoR for betting for S17, DAS, LS and then you are claiming without proof that the derived count is not as good as Wong's Halves which is a level 3 count.

Well the derived KO + (1/2)*(5m9c) is a level three count. You can create higher level derived counts by taking linear combinations of the primacy count and the side count(s).

Attached again is the PDF called HL w 5m9c vs Wongs Halves I sent in one of my earlier posts, that you are referring to. comparing the BCC of HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) with Wong's Halves. Note column X3 which is the derived count HL + (1/2)*(5m9c). Note that HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) is a level three count with the fives counts as 1.5 and the nines counts as (-1/2) just like Wong's Halves a shown in column 4 of this exhibit. Also note the differences between column's 3 and 4. The only difference between Wong's Halves and HL+ (1/2)*(5m9c) is that in Wong's Halves the 2's are counted as +1/2 and the sevens are counted as +1/2 and in HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) the 2's are counted as +1 and the sevens are counted as zero.

To convince yourself the HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) is actually a level 3 count perform the following experiment. Take two decks of cards and count down one of the two decks. First count that one deck with HL. Then take the cards already counted and count them again with 5m9c. Finally take the cards already counted and count with HL + (1/2)*(5m9c), that is count with the tag values of +1 for 2,3,4,6, 1.5 for 5's. zero of 7,8, (-1/2) for 9's and -1 for T's and Aces. Then take (1/2) of the value of 5m9c and HL that you counted to get HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) and compare with the value of the level 3 HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) counted directly with its tag values and you will see they are identical. Repeat this experiment as often as you like and you will see it works every single time. So what you did here was create a level 3 count from two level one counts.

And you mention that you use SCORE to determine which system is best. SCORE is intimately related with my Weighed Average CC which is sort of like Playing Efficiency and with the Betting CC which is related to Betting Efficiency. If WACC increases, SCORE increases, if BCC increases, SCORE increases. As I stated in many prior posts, in over 20 simulations Gronbog has done, every single time either the WACC increased for the BCC increased the SCORE increased.

Also someone said they were gong to run sims on HL w 5m9c. I already gave you what my prediction of the sim results will be by comparing HL w 5m9c WACC and BCC with Wong's. WACC of HL w 5m9c came in 1.8% higher than WH and BCC came in 0.9% below Wong's Halves - refer to a previous post for details. BE is more important than PE for the shoe game. So a 0.9% improvement in BE of WH over HL w 5m9c is countered with a 1.8% increase in WACC of HL w 5m9c over WH. Since BE is around twice as important as PE for the shoe game, the two indicators sort of balance out which is why I stated that my prediction when sims are done on HL w 5m9c that the SCORE of HL w 5m9c will be very close to the SCORE of WH's.

I hope whoever does the sims will post their results of HL w 5m9c verses WH so that my predictions based on CC will be proven to be correct once again.

So attached is the BCC PDF I mentioned earlier in this post and which was attached to a previous post.
HL w 5m9c vs Wongs Halves.pdf