I prefer KO with AA89mTc and 5m6c for the shoe game because of greater true count accuracy at true counts >=3 as opposed to HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c.
Originally Posted by bjanalyst
bjanalyst, I’ve been following this thread off and on so I know you’ve answered this question before, but I can’t find it in this long thread. Can you explain again what you mean by 5m6c? Is this 5 minus 6 counts? Why would you subtract 5 from 6?
I’m interested in your system and agree that it is easier to do a one level count with two side counts, then a two level count.
Finally, I found someone who believes me and not constantly trashing me. Thanks for your confidence!
m = minus and c = count so 5m6c is FIVE MINUS SIX COUNT. So you count the fives as +1 and the sixes as -1. Take a look at the attached files I had to a post asking what CC was where I included a chart calculating CC for hard 16 v T where there were columns for HL, AA78mTc and 5m6c where you can see the tag values of each of these counts.
Simulation results of HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c should be coming soon.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-23-2019 at 07:38 AM.
You are correct about the Ace side count being plus/minus if you count EVERY card. Adef = Ap - 4*dp which can also be calculated as Adef = (12/13)*Ap - (1/13)*(every other card played). So if you want to count each Ace that comes out of the shoe as +(12/13) and every other card that comes out of the shoe as -(1/13) then you are correct that Adef is a plus/minus count! Good luck with your plus/minus ASC.
Nobody using HiOPt2 w/ASC uses the way you described to figure out the deficiency/surplus of aces. It is almost instant instinct after checking how many decks remaining compared to your fingers, shoe position or whatever you use to track aces.
Of course nobody uses the formula Adef = (12/13)*Ap - (1/13)*(every other card played). I just used that because you had mentioned that the ASC was a plus minus count. In theory it is a plus/minus side count if you want to count every card as shown above. But for use you use the formula Adef = Ap - 4*dp where dp = decks played. So you admitted that you have to check out how many decks remaining or equivalently decks played.
So now we are back to what I first said, you are ESTIMINTING dr or dp So if you are off by just one-half a deck then Adef = Ap - 4*dp is off by 2. Plus minus side counts are EXACT - there is no estimate of dp in plus minus side counts. In addition plus/minus side counts are not continually increasing as dp increases so they are much easier to keep. ASC has Ap continually increasing and you are using your fingers, shoe positions or whatever and you call that easy?
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-23-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Most people think HiOpt2 w/ASC is easier because they can easily maintain a count and an item in the object list. My whatever device to track ace is to imagine three shelves with eight objects in each shelf. On top shelf from right to left, I have apple, banana, chicken, duck, eel, fish, goat and ham. On the middle shelf from right to left, I have ice, juice, key lime, lemon, melon, nectarine, orange and pineapple. On the bottom drink shelf, I have queens, rum, sake, tea, utopia, vodka, wine, XO. I start the count with nada zero. Every time I saw an ace, I mentally move focus to the next object on the shelf and call it out in mind, like fish +15 (assuming +15 is my main count). For example, after playing two and a half deck. If the focus is on ham, I know I have two surplus aces and update my playing RC accordingly. It is much easier to maintain a count and an object than your three counts.
Sorry. Gronbog is going to simulate HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c for S17, DAS no LS game. The analogy for the KO is KO with AA89mTc and 5m6c.
Using 5m7c is also a great second count to use but only with the KO, not with the HL. 5m6c helps with betting but 5m7c helps with betting more than 5m6c does when KO is used. 5m7c helps with other strategy changes that 5m6c does not help with but for 16 v T 5m6c is even better for the no LS game since 16 v T cannot be surrendered in the no LS game and so all 16 v T decisions must be hit or stand.
I have done a thorough analysis of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c in my fourth book, High-Low with Plus/Minus side counts. I mention the 5m6c in my 3rd book KO with AA89mTc and 45m79c but used my analysis was just a few pages long and was done in passing. If am thinking of writing a fifth book on KO with AA89mTc and 5m6c and HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c.
So yes, I do like 5m7c as a second side count to the KO. But using 5m7c gives a 16 v T CC of 70% whereas 5m6c gives 94% and my goal here was to increase the CC of the I18 as much as possible and so I needed the best CC for hard 16 v T as possible, especially for the no LS game, thus I chose 5m6c here.
As to which is the best second side count, 5m6c or 5m7c, I am not sure. The 5m7c is added just to the KO with AA89mTc and is NOT added as to HL with AA78mTc since AA78mTc already includes the 7 in the AA78mTc.
So I like both side counts and I am not sure which is better. But my goal was to maximize the I18 CC and so considering just I18, 5m6c is better because it helps the most with the I18 because it helps tremendously with 16 v T and can be used with both HL and KO whereas 5m7c is used only with the KO.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-23-2019 at 12:07 PM.
Here is what happened
5m6c did help with playing efficiency and did slightly increase the HL with AA78mTc performance but HO2 with ASC still beat HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c. The reason that Gronbog told me is most likely BC (betting correlation) and for the shoe game is very important.
So my goal now is to choose a side count that increases HL BC to the HO2 with ASC BC and then use that side count to further improve, that is increase CC, of the I18.
Attached are several betting efficiency calculations. HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) increase HL S17, DAS, no LS betting efficiency from 96.5% to 97.2% which is not good enough to compensate for HO2 – 2*(Adef) betting efficiency of 98.45%. But if I chose 7m9c as the 2nd side count then HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) increases BC to 98.3% which is just shy of HO2 – 2*(Adef) which is 98.5%. So I will now do changes to I18 using 7m9c added as a second side count to HL with AA78mTc and if Gronbog could run another sim using 7m9c in place of 5m6c using I18 changes with 7m9c and using HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) I think I will have a chance of tying the HO2 with ASC.
I have also included BC of KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) and KO + (1/2)*(45m79c) which for S17, DAS, no LS is 99.1% and 99.3% respectively. I covered KO with 45m79c extensively in my 2nd book and in my 3rd book KO with AA89mTc and 45m79c and my 4th book High Low with plus minus side counts I covered KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c extensively and said to use 5m7c which is much easier to keep that 45m79c and still very powerful. So my recommendation has been KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c. The playing strategy gains as measured by individual CC of KO with AA89mTc beats HO2 with ASC and the BC of KO + (1/2)*(5m7c) beats HO2 – 2*(Adef). Since KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beasts HO2 with ASC in both BC and playing efficiency then I believe that my recommendation of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c in my 3rd and 4th books is a count system that will beat HO2 with ASC. HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c lost to HO2 with ASC because of BC – it won with playing efficiency but the lower BC did it in.
Now I am not using KO in these simulations. I am using HL. So with HL I would think that the second side count to add to HL with AA78mTc would be 7m9c because it helps with BC almost tying HO2 with ASC. And I will see what additionally changes to I18 that 7m9c helps with HL with AA78mTc with. The end results is, I believe, a system that will be very close the HO2 with ASC and maybe even beat HO2 with ASC. And my further prediction is that KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c will be even better than HL with AA78mTc and7m9c and in addition with KO being unbalanced you will have great true count accuracy for true counts >= 3 as I showed in earlier posts.
But all is not lost with 5m6c. It does help HL with AA78mTc a little but I want to concentrate on camouflage here. Hard 16 v T hit/stand was the second most important playing strategy decision on Don's I18, second only to insurance. Adding 5m6c to HL with AA78mTc increased the CC from 65.1% to 94.3%. I thought that alone would make a big difference in results but apparently including this made only a very small difference. Griffin also mentioned using the 5m6c for hard 16 v T hit/sand decision and below are my calculations of hard 16 v T for HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c.
But I do have a comment on using 5m6c with HL with AA78mTc in that it could help with camouflage plays. Casinos use the HL with I18 to catch counters. There are many strange plays using AA78mTc with HL that would throw the casinos off such as taking insurance at low HL true counts if AA78mTc was large positive or not taking insurance at high HL true count based if AA78mTc were large negative. Casinos expect you to take insurance whenever HL >= 3*dr. So AA78mTc helps with camouflage for insurance and for some hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 decisions. 5m6c could help for camouflage for hit/stand hard 16. Casinos expect you to stand on hard 16 when you have a large bet out. But if 5m6c is sufficiently negative then psrc = HL + 3*(5m6c) + (1/2)*(AA78mTc) could be less than zero and you would be hitting hard 16. So assuming AA78mTc = 0 then if 5m6c < (-2)*dr, for example, you would be hitting hard 16 v T when HL was a large as 6*dr since if HL = 6*dr and AA78mTc = 0 and 5m6c = (-2)*dr then psrc = HL + 3*(5m6c) + (1/2)*(AA78mTc) = 6*dr + 3*(-2*dr) + (1/2)*(0) = 0 and if HL < 6*dr then psrc < 0 and so you would hit. So the casino would see you hitting hard 16 v T with a large bet out. So 5m6c could still have some value for camouflage plays. Also 5m6c helps you standing on hard 16 v 7, hard 16 v 8 and hard 16 v 9 if 5m6c is large enough. So HL can be small but if 5m6c is large enough you would stand on hard 16 v 7, 8 or 9 with a low HL count which could also act as camouflage. Stand on hard 16 v 9 if HL + 2*(5m6c) >= 4dr, stand on hard 16 v 8 if HL + 2*(5m6c) >= 6*dr and stand on hard 16 v 7 if HL + 2*(5m6c) >= 7*dr which could give good camouflage plays. So I still think 5m6c is useful for camouflage and could help the casino identify you as a non-counter or a very poor counter and so they would leave you alone. So I would not totally throw out 5m6c as a second side count.
Betting Efficiency2.jpg
Betting Efficiency3.jpg
Betting Efficiency4.jpg
Betting Efficiency5.jpg
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks