How can I use this information to better help my game? ! I can keep track of the aces fine but how do I now use this information for insurance and betting! Thanks!!
Useful for insurance, the Ace is already figured into your betting and High-Low has pretty high betting correlation as it is. It may be useful for a few play deviations if you have multi-parameter indexes but if you're going to go to the effort of an Ace side count you'd be better off using a count designed for that.
i like that side count 7, as insurance decision comes up less often . Don s said for every excess ace add +2 to the rc ,then convert and use the info for better insurance decision. i wouldn't bother using that for 6 decks though(lots of effort for minimal gain)
Last edited by stopgambling; 12-07-2014 at 03:32 PM.
if using a side count for 7 /guessing i would put back the value seen (I use felt) when hitting 12, 13 and 14 , and a decision change on 12 vs 4-6 ? how would the decision change work ? any pointers ? thanks
Last edited by Nikky_Flash; 12-08-2014 at 01:52 PM.
Ace side count in Hi/Lo is mostly only useful in handheld games, and I have found that there are so few aces in handheld games that it is hard NOT to keep track of them. So it is kind of a mute point. With that said I'm not a big fan of multi-parameter counts. There is very little gain for the much more work. Multi-parameter counters will have you believe that what they are doing is so super better, but I've always found that to just be an elitist attitude that doesn't stand up to the math.
Using Hi-Lo the insurance bet is often horribly inaccurate even with an Ace side count or factoring in Aces. Sure, it's a little help, add deficit/subtract surplus Aces but what you are doing is taking into account these four cards per deck and ignoring 12 others per deck. This inaccuracy is due to the basic fundamentals of insurance betting, the number of {T} by volume compared to all other cards in the deck other than {T}. With insurance betting an (A) is the same as a (7) is the same as a (2) is the same as a (5). You are factoring in the (A) but ignoring (7-9) completely, which just happen to be "cards other than (T)". This is to say that if you had TC+3 or +4 and took insurance confidently having factored in those two surplus (A) you could still be way off the mark due to a surplus of (7-9) in the remainder of the deck. By the same token when using HI-Lo you could have a TC+1 and due to deficit (7-9) in the remainder the deck composition would warrant taking the insurance. By adding (7-9) you dilute the concentration of {T} by volume and by taking away (7-9) you increase the concentration of {T} by volume.
Let's look at an example of this and see how this stands up to the math. There is one deck remaining, exactly 52 cards. Eight more {2-5} are in the discard than {6-9}, four more {T} are in the discard than {6-9}, there are four (A) in the remainder.
Hi-Lo player / Elitist Asshole / House edge on insurance bet
TC+5, take insurance / Insurance Count 0, no insurance / 7.7%
Another example off in the opposite direction as follows:
One deck remains, exactly 52 cards. Two more {T} are in the discard than {2-5}, ten more {6-9} are in the discard than {2-5}, four (A) in the remainder of the deck.
Hi-Lo player / Elitist Asshole / House Edge on insurance bet
TC0, no insurance / IC+6, take insurance / -3.84%
These calculations assume an even distribution within the {6-9} grouping, meaning that in the first example one (6) has been played and in the second example two (6) have been played to come up with the Hi-Lo players TC. Perfect insurance betting means factoring in all cards other than {T}. Factoring in (A) to your insurance bet is a slight help but by no means accurate if you are completely ignoring the (7-9). Surplus (7-9) dilute the {T} in the remainder and deficit (7-9) further concentrate the {T} in the remainder. I employ perfect insurance betting without a separate Insurance Count with a simple formula derived from my main count. As soon as I see an (A) upcard I immediately do a separate calculation for the insurance count using the information provided by my running count.
In the first example the Hi-Lo player is taking insurance when the house edge is 7.7% on the insurance bet and in the second example the Hi-Lo player is not taking the insurance when there is a 3.84% player edge on the insurance bet. You don't have to do what I do to have perfect insurance betting correlation though. James Grosjean suggests using a separate insurance count in addition to whatever count you use in Beyond Counting (in the part where he hasn't gone beyond counting yet) and lays out a simple insurance count. If this is a hassle and you have a partner, you could train them to do the insurance count while you focus on your count, I would think.
Last edited by Tarzan; 12-17-2014 at 09:37 AM.
I did an experiment at the house today where I used a single deck of cards with the 2 examples and the discard information you provided above. I took the recommended cards out of the deck and put them in a fake discard tray. Since there were 4 aces remaining in the deck I kept the dealer up card as the constant controlled variable, an ACE.
In the first experiment I simulated and dealt out 2 player hands with the dealer hand showing the Ace (the constant). Only 10 total hands per example, No washing of the deck was done, each separate deal consisted of about 7 riffle shuffles with several cuts, a few more riffles and then a final cut on the deck to get randomization of the deck, player cards and the dealer hole card were plugged back into the deck at random spots after checking for the dealer Blackjack before the next deal.
*Eight more {2-5} are in the discard than {6-9}, four more {T} are in the discard than {6-9}, there are four (A) in the remainder.
The dealer hole card at 2 player hands with this scenario
1. 8
2. A
3. BJ
4. 9
5. BJ
6. 4
7. A
8. 2
9. BJ
10. 5
* Two more {T} are in the discard than {2-5}, ten more {6-9} are in the discard than {2-5}, four (A) in the remainder of the deck.
The dealer hole card at 2 player hands with this scenario
1. BJ
2. BJ
3. BJ
4. 6
5. 3
6. 5
7. A
8. BJ
9. 2
10. 2
In the second experiment with only 1 player hand (heads up), only 10 hands per with the dealer ACE as the constant.
*Eight more {2-5} are in the discard than {6-9}, four more {T} are in the discard than {6-9}, there are four (A) in the remainder.
Dealer hole card results with 1 player hand
1. 6
2. BJ
3. 7
4. BJ
5. 7
6. BJ
7. 4
8. A
9. 4
10. 7
* Two more {T} are in the discard than {2-5}, ten more {6-9} are in the discard than {2-5}, four (A) in the remainder of the deck.
Dealer hole card results with 1 player hand
1. 4
2. 9
3. 3
4. 3
5. BJ
6. 5
7. BJ
8. 6
9. 5
10. BJ
Out of 40 total hands even though it is short-term the method of:
One deck remains, exactly 52 cards. Two more {T} are in the discard than {2-5}, ten more {6-9} are in the discard than {2-5}, four (A) in the remainder of the deck.
Hi-Lo player / Elitist Asshole / House Edge on insurance bet
TC0, no insurance / IC+6, take insurance / -3.84%
At 2 player hands produced 1 more BJ. The results I got for heads up play against a dealer Ace for both sets of rules was even, even though 40 hands may not be enough hands to show a definitive result.
Last edited by Blitzkrieg; 12-17-2014 at 12:38 PM.
Bookmarks