CORRELATIONS FOR 6 DECKS AND S17			 

							 

  Hand	        Hi-Lo	Hi-OptI	  RPC	  Zen	OmegaII	 UAPC	Halves 

							 

Insurance	0.7601	0.8498	0.7799	0.8498	0.8498	0.9014	0.7247 

16 vs. T	0.5499	0.6284	0.5769	0.6150	0.6567	0.7048	0.6432 

16 vs. 9	0.5287	0.5804	0.4459	0.4678	0.5090	0.5035	0.5032 

15 vs. T	0.7758	0.8985	0.8246	0.8908	0.9288	0.8922	0.8615 

13 vs. 3	0.6884	0.7872	0.7528	0.8252	0.8932	0.9247	0.7884 

13 vs. 2	0.6633	0.7605	0.7321	0.8070	0.8576	0.9122	0.7566 

12 vs. 6	0.6627	0.7937	0.6766	0.7651	0.7836	0.8431	0.6228 

12 vs. 5	0.8201	0.8688	0.8321	0.8837	0.8573	0.9048	0.7696 

12 vs. 4	0.7719	0.8720	0.8267	0.8773	0.8498	0.9121	0.7659 

12 vs. 3	0.7095	0.8110	0.7687	0.8423	0.8140	0.8781	0.7128 

12 vs. 2	0.6385	0.7319	0.6984	0.7699	0.7232	0.8078	0.6321 

11 vs. A	0.8260	0.9216	0.8443	0.9157	0.9677	0.9680	0.8460 

10 vs. A	0.9434	0.9031	0.9755	0.9844	0.9396	0.9498	0.9513 

10 vs T	        0.8278	0.6872	0.8915	0.8526	0.7664	0.8139	0.8730 

9 vs. 2	        0.8176	0.7921	0.8472	0.8894	0.8455	0.9059	0.8033 

9 vs. 7	        0.8590	0.7940	0.8274	0.8281	0.8837	0.8254	0.8691 

8 vs. 6	        0.8660	0.8606	0.8284	0.8295	0.8660	0.8564	0.8528 

8 vs. 5	        0.9368	0.9374	0.9134	0.9188	0.9422	0.8991	0.9346 

A8 vs. 6	0.8038	0.9493	0.8633	0.8775	0.9127	0.9279	0.8937 

A8 vs. 5	0.8499	0.9540	0.9153	0.9042	0.9053	0.9004	0.9296 

							 

							 

			THE FABULOUS FOUR				 

							 

15 v 9	        0.8145	0.8742	0.8069	0.8320	0.8464	0.7579	0.8546 

15 v T	        0.8132	0.8737	0.7982	0.8367	0.8729	0.7801	0.8387 

15 v A	        0.6805	0.7492	0.6553	0.6829	0.7452	0.6161	0.7264 

14 v T	        0.6581	0.7191	0.7597	0.8115	0.8507	0.8237	0.7787




a) Correlations are generic, and not composition-dependent. Not any card has been removed here (see BJA, page 522 for the Insurance correlations,
after removing dealer?s ace). E.g. T,5 vs. T; 9,6 vs. T and 8,7 vs. T. We do not get the same correlations, as the above printed one for 15 vs. T, but their results will be quiet similar and cluster in the nearby. For Hi-lo and T, 5 vs. T we get: 0.7729. Well in the proximity of the generic.

b) With 11 winners out of 24, UAPC behaves itself, as a flamboyant count, to deal with the particular situations during the play of the hands. How could be otherwise, coming from Ken? God bless his soul!

c) Almost unbelievable is watching Dr. Humble?s Hiopt I, running with 6 winners. Especially for Surrender decisions this count is a killer. I?m beginning to understand now, his affection for Caribbean destinations. My bet is, he winning enough money to pay for his vacation expenses, at least. :-)

d) There is nothing it can be done to handle the 16 vs. 9 with moderate good efficiency. The meager correlations speak for themselves. What about turning your face from the table to avoid the vision of its fatal fate? Isn't there any surrender table handy? A good medicine against despair!

e) Finally, my apologies for the `unbalanced? counters round here. My analyser is ill suited for this. But most likely Cacarulo?s one would not. A ?subtle? hint!

All in all, enjoy your own count.

Regards,

Zf