PE and BC

[Three]

As long as you are taking an optimal advantage from the situation. That is why I asked about PE and BC.

PE interacts with BC in unpredictable ways to determine which approach is best. If you flat bet PE better PE would automatically be better but we don't flat bet. One count gains this percent on that play but less on another while another count might earn slightly more on one play and a lot less on the other. Which performs better depends on bet amounts, the play frequencies and how much is gained and at what rate it is gained. These things all affect the bottom line when considering both PE and BC and will be best figured in sims with the same spread bet optimally for the same BR and RoR. If you have a huge BR maybe EV is the most important thing to you but I like to minimize n0 (Which is the same as maximizing SCORE. But with so many different types of SCORE being tossed around minimizing n0 is less confusing). Often minimizing n0 also maximizes EV but not always.

[Three]

Just a little counting twist (in VAPC) of giving the 4 the same credit as 5 and the 3 as 2,7 maintains a balanced count, yet increases SCORE over 10%.

This sounds like the almost the same way Hiopt2 treats low cards. The ratio of tag weights for the 2 low card groups is not the same though. I am not sure which would be better. You also left out the 6 from the low cards.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"This sounds like the almost the same way Hiopt2 treats low cards. The ratio of tag weights for the 2 low card groups is not the same though. I am not sure which would be better. You also left out the 6 from the low cards."

When the Hi-Opt II was created it was named Hi-Opt as an acronym for "Highly Optimal."
The 5 and 4 ARE the crucial low cards as they "make" a hand from the dealer's stiffs.
The 6's have the same (moderate) E.O.R. as the 3's.
The 2's and 7's are the least important low cards.

[Three]

Yet side counting 7s is a requirement in Hi Opt II. Giving the 2 more credit than the 7 will cause PE to suffer. Giving the 7 more credit than the 2 will improve PE and not reduce BC very much. This is misleading or sometimes confusing because the 2 is considered a slightly higher value than the 7 from an EOR standpoint which relates to BC.

Side counting the 7 is not required in Hiopt2 as it is in the betting count (main count). By side counting it you can give it different weights when playing different hands. You side count 7's in any count for stronger playing decisions on certain match ups. Sometimes it is a the most important high card but more often it is the most important low card. By side counting the 7 you can give it the appropriate weight for hands where the main count weights it wrong for playing the matchup you are playing.

[seriousplayer]

Side counting the 7 is not required in Hiopt2 as it is in the betting count (main count). By side counting it you can give it different weights when playing different hands. You side count 7's in any count for stronger playing decisions on certain match ups. Sometimes it is a the most important high card but more often it is the most important low card. Ny side counting the 7 you can give it the appropriate weight for hands where the main count weights it wrong for playing the matchup you are playing.

Side count sevens further improve the PE.

[Three]

Side count sevens further improve the PE.

It will improve PE for any count but the improvement will be proportional to the original PE for the count.

[Three]

Wouldn't counting the middle cards in Tarzan's method take the same amount mental energy? Yet with far more viable information to ascertain, by reducing the lowest column to zero.

If you use the info the way Taran does it would but traditionally a straight side count is used linearly not the way Tarzan uses the side count info.

[Three]

Agreed. My point was giving the 7 more value to eliminate the need to side count. If not, then use that same mental energy for something really useful. Like avoiding the big bet that put one in that predicament in the first place.

The 7 is side counted for PE purposes because often the 7 is either the most important low card or a very important low card. No single tag value will get what you need out of the 7. Therefore it is a prime candidate for side counting were the the tag value can be adjusted for the situation.

[DSchles]

"But with so many different types of SCORE being tossed around minimizing n0 is less confusing). Often minimizing n0 also maximizes EV but not always."

Statement doesn't make any sense. SCORE is the reciprocal of N0 and vice versa. If you're somehow finding a standard way to minimize N0, then you are automatically maximizing SCORE at the same time. Just because 90% of people who write SCORE have no idea what they're saying, don't fall into the same trap.

In the meantime, I find all these discussions about PE and BC incredibly boring, tedious, and virtually useless. They are old-fashioned and no longer represent a way to know at all about the relative merit of a counting system. To me, there is no huge money to be made playing single deck. Teams that win millions never touch a SD game. They all play shoes. And, if you had a concealed computer that inputted perfectly every card played, which is to say better than you, Tarzan, and anyone else on the planet could do it, the ultimate gain is not at all that much greater than playing, say, Hi-Opt II and being done with it. I have never seen anywhere the improvement of a computer over a Hi-Opt II player who uses a side count of aces, but I am willing to bet that it isn't all that much.

So many of these discussions make it sound like, if you keep 85 side counts in your head, you're making fortunes more than the dedicated single-parameter counter, or the Hi-Opt II player who sides aces. I'm sure it isn't true.

Don

[Three]

Statement doesn't make any sense. SCORE is the reciprocal of N0 and vice versa. If you're somehow finding a standard way to minimize N0, then you are automatically maximizing SCORE at the same time. Just because 90% of people who write SCORE have no idea what they're saying, don't fall into the same trap.

I use the true definition of SCORE or nomenclature that indicates I am referring to something else like c-SCORE etc but in communication with others I find less chance of confusion when I simply use n0. Like you said it is the a multiple of the reciprocal of SCORE so I can use that and eliminate the confusion or need to teach the listener the true definition of SCORE without the qualifiers.

And, if you had a concealed computer that inputted perfectly every card played, which is to say better than you, Tarzan, and anyone else on the planet could do it, the ultimate gain is not at all that much greater than playing, say, Hi-Opt II and being done with it

You and I both know the gain depends on how the computer is programmed to make decisions. But I agree it is hard to get more out using a linear approach than with Hiopt2/ASC. With my 2cd runs the betting accuracy of Hiopt2 is most impressive, at least where you bet sizing is affected. I didn't really look hard at the parts you would min bet or max bet no matter what. They were not as strong at advantage prediction but it was a moot point since it doesn't affect your betting.

So many of these discussions make it sound like, if you keep 85 side counts in your head, you're making fortunes more than the dedicated single-parameter counter, or the Hi-Opt II player who sides aces. I'm sure it isn't true.

Much of my research is into other counting games where this is not true at all. I know you should understand my system as you are one of the few that can probably understand the affect that way more accurate betting has on bet levels and overall win rate. This is were the big gains are in both swing control and EV. You can bet a lot more and still have a lower RoR. The change in wonging adds as much to do with the gain as anything.

[Tarzan]

With all due respect to DonS., there is not that much of a difference between myself and a computer doing perfect play. They are not that far off from one another. Of course a side-count or specific knowledge of deck composition is going to improve PE but this is a finite thing. Once you attain perfect play there is no farther, beyond that only the issue of leveraging of your wagers. For any given hand in any given deck composition in any given number of cards remaining there is always the most optimal playing decision, even if that difference is .0001 in terms of EV.

As you know, I look at things more in terms of a 3 digit deck composition, a ratio per deck blah blah blah... Anyway, I was recently playing alongside someone that was apparently using some sort of count (I didn't ask), his bets went up and down with TC. I couldn't help noticing that our bets were going up and down somewhat in unison. I got an A,7vs2 and doubled, immediately getting scoffed at by the other player that I was supposed to stand. I didn't really think about it that much until I was off the table but I doubled in a slightly negative RC-1 (0-10-4-6r @1.75 minimum bet out) and what would appear to be a more negative count using Hi-Lo (RC-4 or so). I made the correct decision by a long shot, well into the zone to double with no question about it. Just the {6-9} removed were enough to justify the playing decision but there was also a surplus of (2,3), pushing it that much farther into the zone to double.

A,7vs2 is a hand that the Hi-Lo TC can be -4, +4, whatever and whether you follow basic strategy or double according to an index the decision can be wrong. With this hand the {6-9} have a major impact, more so than {2-5} removed. The count was around 0-10-4-6r @1.75, RC-1. The criteria for deviating from basic strategy (and perfect play) on this hand consists of {6-9} in surplus and deficit and whether more (2,3) or more (4,5) have been removed from {2-5}. If I have a zero with two large numbers on either side of it, this points toward standing (surplus {6-9}), if more (2,3) have been removed than (4,5) within the {2-5} and there are deficit {6-9} this points in the direction to double. I know the exact ratio per deck I need with an even distribution, so knowledge of surplus or deficit (2,3) can alter the decision when it's close since they have such a huge EOR for this particular hand.

For the Hi-Lo player this hand can mean standing when you should be doubling (0-10-4 with (7,8,9) removed appearing to be Hi-Lo RC-4) or doubling when you should be standing (10-0-4 with deficit (2,3) appearing to be Hi-Lo RC+6). For me it's a group of parameters that all add up to the optimum playing decision as in for that type of deck composition you always do this, having more to do with deck composition and keycard effect than RC/TC. I have a benchmark to work from, the exact point of departure with an even distribution within groupings and if it's all that close I am of course going to consider whether I have seen more (2,3) or (4,5) removed out of the {2-5} grouping. Usually it's not close at all, clearly on one side of the line or the other and easily definable based on the block count assuming even distribution.

20151101_005519.jpg

In looking at the chart you will notice that with a surplus of {6-9} in the remainder of the deck you will stand and with a deficit you will double, EOR of (2,3) have a serious impact, etc. In any case, there's a Hi-Lo player out there that thinks I'm a semi-retarded lucky "ploppy" which I find sort of amusing. It's not like I was going to introduce myself.

[ZeeBabar]

Awesome Tarzan. To you and to Tthree you counts may be easy to play but I am smart enough to know that I can't do it. I am probably the HiLo guy who thought you were a lucky ploppy, lol. I should never dismiss someone who is winning as just a lucky ploppy.

[Three]

Awesome Tarzan. To you and to Tthree you counts may be easy to play but I am smart enough to know that I can't do it. I am probably the HiLo guy who thought you were a lucky ploppy, lol. I should never dismiss someone who is winning as just a lucky ploppy.

Well you are right not to use a count that you can't do accurately. I question whether you can develop more skillz that would change that situation. I guess it comes down to the dedication and work ethic to develop new skillz. Some have the drive to stick with it not just until they can do it but until they can do it perfectly every time before trying anything new in the casino. You know who you are and your work ethic and level of dedication better than others. Your continual desire to just ask basic questions here without learning how to learn things for yourself and then ask for clarification seems to indicate your assessment about your lack of dedication and a strong work ethic is correct.