Lucky Ladies Simulation Request

[seriousplayer]

I said an eight deck blackjack game (S17, DAS, LS) dealt to 80-88% with the Lucky Ladies Side Bet. I couldn't find any studies regarding beating Lucky Ladies in an eight deck game. However, I did find studies from Norm that we should take the Lucky Ladies bet at TC >=7. With a higher SCORE and EV at TC>=9.

Can someone simulate taking the Lucky Ladies side using the KO Count starting at 4,3,2, and 1 deck starting at TC >=7 and at TC>=9? What I am trying to find out is the Lucky Ladies win rate, variance, and standard deviation at each of those counts. As well as the requested bankroll to beat the game.

Is the odds for the Lucky Ladies so good that you can focused entirely on winning the Lucky Ladies bets? Could you just lose a little or break even, as long as you stick to betting the Lucky Ladies bet.

[Romes]

I don't know about KO, but I can tell you for fact that as the number of decks increases the target number to bet the ladies decreases. For 8D it's a Hi/Low TC +4. For 6D it's a Hi/Low TC +7. However, if you're targeting this side bet why you wouldn't use a different count (than either KO or Hi/Low) is beyond me .

I'd rather not share more about this, but seriously, just use Google. You'll be amazed at what you find.

[seriousplayer]

I don't know about KO, but I can tell you for fact that as the number of decks increases the target number to bet the ladies decreases. For 8D it's a Hi/Low TC +4. For 6D it's a Hi/Low TC +7. However, if you're targeting this side bet why you wouldn't use a different count (than either KO or Hi/Low) is beyond me .

I'd rather not share more about this, but seriously, just use Google. You'll be amazed at what you find.

Hi Romes,

Thank you for replying to my post. The reason why I choose to use KO to target this side bet rather than a different count is because I want to beat the game without the side bet. Using KO allow me to achieve two tasks at once beating the game and beating the Lucky Ladies side bet. I read about using the Ten Count to target the side bet. The Betting Correlation for the Ten Count is not good (.72). It is good for IC and PE.

How should we bet the max for Lucky Ladies at TC >=4?

[Smartblackjack]

Hi Romes,

Thank you for replying to my post. The reason why I choose to use KO to target this side bet rather than a different count is because I want to beat the game without the side bet. Using KO allow me to achieve two tasks at once beating the game and beating the Lucky Ladies side bet. I read about using the Ten Count to target the side bet. The Betting Correlation for the Ten Count is not good (.72). It is good for IC and PE.

How should we bet the max for Lucky Ladies at TC >=4?

Never bet the side bet it starts with about a 9% house advantage and almost is never in the players favor in a double deck game with a full table you would need two rounds with a full table without a 10 popping to get an edge. Blackjack in a decent game starts with .5% house advantage with reasonable rules and is in the players favor with a plus 2 count or more which happens a lot after 1 round.



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Jabberwocky]

Never bet the side bet it starts with about a 9% house advantage and almost is never in the players favor in a double deck game with a full table you would need two rounds with a full table without a 10 popping to get an edge. Blackjack in a decent game starts with .5% house advantage with reasonable rules and is in the players favor with a plus 2 count or more which happens a lot after 1 round.



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

apheat.net calculates the LL side bet at 24.78%. I don't know how you arrive at 9%.

[Smartblackjack]

apheat.net calculates the LL side bet at 24.78%. I don't know how you arrive at 9%.

That makes it even worse the house rules and payouts is what determine the house edge and house edge on sidebets very greatly. So the better odds side bet is a 9% house edge and a horrible edge side bet is 24.78% house edge both are impossible to overcome in the long run and probably the short run to.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[stopgambling]

That makes it even worse the house rules and payouts is what determine the house edge and house edge on sidebets very greatly. So the better odds side bet is a 9% house edge and a horrible edge side bet is 24.78% house edge both are impossible to overcome in the long run and probably the short run to.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

It is possible but is it worth it? Very few good opportunities I assume.

[Tarzan]

It's been suggested to keep a Q/Qh sidecount if taking the LL bet seriously and it's available at the places you play. The reasoning for the count to decrease with the increase in no. of decks is due to the higher number of Q and QH available if you look at how the numbers behave on the sims that have been done. You can look up this data but in general a 6D 5/6 dealt a "perfect count" betting $100 at TC+7 or more will yield about $1.14 in the positive compared to .49 using Hi-Lo betting $100 at TC+6.3 or greater. Hi-Lo slightly outperforms Red7 coming in at .46 (3 cents less on $100 bet). KO slightly outperforms Hi-Lo when using the same $100 benchmark at .54 (5 cents more per $100 than Hi-Lo). So there you have it, KO slightly stronger than Hi-Lo and RED7 slightly less than Hi-Lo with all very close to one another but all quite distant from what would be considered a "perfect count".

So basically there you are on a 6D game, LL10 and going with TC+7 or more to bet LL. If you are at 4 decks remaining but have not seen a single darn Q much less any Qh so far with two decks in the discard and you have TC+5... think about it.

You are talking of an 8D game so this increases the number of Q, Qh, lowering the index the farther in you get without seeing Q/Qh and raising the index if there is a depletion of Q/QH. You'll have an easier time getting Qh,Qh vs Dlr BJ playing 6 or 8 decks than you will on single deck in other words! One possible set of Qh for 2D, three possible sets of Qh for 6D, etc. I could talk of the specifics of what I do but I don't know if this would help you or confuse you. I've mentioned about perfect insurance betting and the same type of count for an insurance count can be used for this situation in conjunction with a Q/Qh sidecount. 8D instead of 6D is to the players advantage with regard to the LL sidebet.

[seriousplayer]

It's been suggested to keep a Q/Qh sidecount if taking the LL bet seriously and it's available at the places you play. The reasoning for the count to decrease with the increase in no. of decks is due to the higher number of Q and QH available if you look at how the numbers behave on the sims that have been done. You can look up this data but in general a 6D 5/6 dealt a "perfect count" betting $100 at TC+7 or more will yield about $1.14 in the positive compared to .49 using Hi-Lo betting $100 at TC+6.3 or greater. Hi-Lo slightly outperforms Red7 coming in at .46 (3 cents less on $100 bet). KO slightly outperforms Hi-Lo when using the same $100 benchmark at .54 (5 cents more per $100 than Hi-Lo). So there you have it, KO slightly stronger than Hi-Lo and RED7 slightly less than Hi-Lo with all very close to one another but all quite distant from what would be considered a "perfect count".

So basically there you are on a 6D game, LL10 and going with TC+7 or more to bet LL. If you are at 4 decks remaining but have not seen a single darn Q much less any Qh so far with two decks in the discard and you have TC+5... think about it.

You are talking of an 8D game so this increases the number of Q, Qh, lowering the index the farther in you get without seeing Q/Qh and raising the index if there is a depletion of Q/QH. You'll have an easier time getting Qh,Qh vs Dlr BJ playing 6 or 8 decks than you will on single deck in other words! One possible set of Qh for 2D, three possible sets of Qh for 6D, etc. I could talk of the specifics of what I do but I don't know if this would help you or confuse you. I've mentioned about perfect insurance betting and the same type of count for an insurance count can be used for this situation in conjunction with a Q/Qh sidecount. 8D instead of 6D is to the players advantage with regard to the LL sidebet.

Thank you Tarzan for reply to me post. In an 8D game is TC>= 4 correct for taking the LL sidebet?

[Dog Hand]

<snip>Can someone simulate taking the Lucky Ladies side using the KO Count starting at 4,3,2, and 1 deck starting at TC >=7 and at TC>=9?<snip>

seriousplayer,

I failed to understand the quoted portion: what do you mean by "using the KO Count starting at 4,3,2, and 1 deck"? Also, why are you mentioning a True Count with the KO system?

If you clarify your request, I'll see if I can sim the game.

Dog Hand

[seriousplayer]

seriousplayer,

I failed to understand the quoted portion: what do you mean by "using the KO Count starting at 4,3,2, and 1 deck"? Also, why are you mentioning a True Count with the KO system?

If you clarify your request, I'll see if I can sim the game.

Dog Hand

Dog Hand,

What I mean by "using the KO Count starting at 4,3,2, and 1 deck" is using different strike RC at 4 decks, 3 decks, 2 decks and 1 decks. In other words I am using KO LL-Strike RC for various deck levels. The RC would equal the TC >=7. All the information I looked up said to take the LL side bet at TC>=7. So I figure in an eight deck game with four decks left to be played I will take the lucky lady side bet with the strike number equal to TC>= 7 at different deck depths starting with 4.

Later I realized for an eight deck game the TC to take the LL side bet is lower TC >=4 was the TC to take the LL side bet in an eight deck game. Not sure if that is correct. Unless it is an error.

[Tarzan]

Thank you Tarzan for reply to me post. In an 8D game is TC>= 4 correct for taking the LL sidebet?

At TC+4 if you are far enough into the 8D and have enough surplus Q/Qd then you are in the positive expectation zone to make the LL bet (possibly not by much)... only one problem with all that, you are using KO so go by a RC, not the TC. I would have to convert the KO RC into what I'm used to, a deck composition and a TC to answer that. The person to answer that is someone who uses KO and has studied the LL sidebet. There was something else I saw pertaining to KO and "KO with side", which I assume is an (A) sidecount. KO "with side" fares better than without. You need to find the specifics for what you are doing, for KO and not what people using other counts are doing.

Personally I go by IC+7 using my insurance count rather than betting count. If there are surplus Q, Qh then I would bet it at less than IC+7. As I said, at IC+5, +6, I am two decks into the discard in a 6D game. I've only seen one Q come out of the deck so far and no Qh, meaning there are seven surplus Q's available in the remaining four decks, I'll place some sort of bet on the LL. If it was TC+8 or more and only one Q had come out with four decks remaining I'd bet more (which is usually only $25 max). I use the insurance count because the LL bet becomes linear much like the insurance bet does, so a specific density of {T} to all other cards along with a sidecount of Q is what you'd be going by. The idea of going by just a RC and not TC is difficult for me to fathom, so using KO your betting count is going to be sloppy. I'm guessing that the LL sidebet using KO would be the same, a little on the sloppy side. With that being the case, it wouldn't hurt to look at the exact point of LL being a worthwhile bet using KO and/or go with whatever the KO equivalent is of TC+7 or more (with Q in even distribution) to bet it. If you have the KO equivalent of TC+4 (my insurance count) on an 8D with 4 decks in the discard tray but a huge surplus of Q to include Qh in the remainder then by all means you should wager on the LL bet. If you have the KO equivalent of what would be TC+6 (my insurance count) at that same level of pen but a huge number of Q are depleted to include at least five or six Qh then you wouldn't and would go with a rock solid TC+7 or more to wager on it.

The edge increases with the number of decks due to the increased number of Q and in particular Qh so if it's golden in 6D, it's sure as heck going to be at least that good with 8D. Keep in mind the theoretical edge is based on the infrequent occurrence of some of those QQ and even QhQhvsBJ popping up but it goes up drastically with surplus Q, Qh in the remainder of the deck. If the density of {T} in the remainder hits about 35% or more the LL bet becomes worth wagering on. A sidecount of Q/Qh would be quite the fanciful thing to do if you really want to go hardcore, I suppose. I won't have an exact count of Q, only a ballpark within a card or two. In the heat of battle I already have enough to do. I will have an exact ratio of {T} to other cards using my insurance count. I would probably train to do an exact Q, Qh sidecount if I played LL more often than I do, it's relatively infrequent that I play LL or run into it.

[seriousplayer]

The idea of going by just a RC and not TC is difficult for me to fathom, so using KO your betting count is going to be sloppy. I'm guessing that the LL sidebet using KO would be the same, a little on the sloppy side. With that being the case, it wouldn't hurt to look at the exact point of LL being a worthwhile bet using KO and/or go with whatever the KO equivalent is of TC+7 or more (with Q in even distribution) to bet it. If you have the KO equivalent of TC+4 (my insurance count) on an 8D with 4 decks in the discard tray but a huge surplus of Q to include Qh in the remainder then by all means you should wager on the LL bet. If you have the KO equivalent of what would be TC+6 (my insurance count) at that same level of pen but a huge number of Q are depleted to include at least five or six Qh then you wouldn't and would go with a rock solid TC+7 or more to wager on it.

If the betting count is +4 it will not be sloppy because that is the pivot of KO no matter how many decks played. But on the other hand if it require to have a TC of 7 to take the LL sidebet using KO than the betting count would be on the sloppy side. In that case it requires using KO LL-Strike RC for various deck levels.

I got it thank you for the reply.