Most of people here think HO2/ASC will outperform your systems based on the educated guess. We just want to know if the simulation results can convince you, too.Originally Posted by bjanalyst
In the end, while it might be intellectually satisfying for bjanalyst to tweak and perfect his system, in an effort to outperform Hi-Opt II ASC, to me, two things are absolutely certain: 1) Any such outperformance will be minuscule, and 2) The amount of effort needed to master the system and its highly greater complexity, compared to Hi-Opt II, makes it very unlikely, in my view, that anyone will want to learn the system other than the author himself.
Don
Gronberg just emailed me and he asked me if I wanted to post his results if I wanted him to post his results. I asked him to post his results. This way he state his results in his own words and then you can ask him directly instead of it coming from me. I know nothing about simulations so I would not be able to answer your simulation questions.
He is too busy to do any more analysis so he will post his results to HL with AA78mTc with 6 I18, then6 more I18 and finally 14 more AA78mTc changes. Each time additional AA78mTc changes were incorporated HL improved. Then he will list 5m6c changes which also improve HL. But HL BC was not improved or barely improved with 5m6c and for the shoe game betting is very important. thus HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c fell below HO2 with ASC. But it did improve HL and also has some excellent I18 camouflage player which is the casinos is using HL with I18 to see if you are a counter, you will have them confused.
My suggested countsystem in my 3rd and 4th books for the shoe game was KO with AA89mTc and5m7c. As measured by individual CC, my analysis shows that this countsystem beats that HO2 with ASC in the vast majority of individual playingstrategy decisions including the vast majority of the I18 decisions and inaddition has a significantly higher BC than HO2 with ASC. Since this count system beats HO2 with ASC in both playing efficiency and BC then I would speculate that it would outperform HO with ASC, perhaps significantly.
I could have asked to have KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c analyzed from the beginning but such a task would bedaunting and the changes to the sim program would be complex. Changes to the HLwas used as a proxy and the sim results point to the fact that my CC and index calculations and values of "k" were correct since every time more changes were added to the HL itimproved.
Finally, everyone seems to think that keeping two plus/minus side counts is difficult. It is not difficult, I think keeping that the difficult HO2 with ASC is difficult.
I will include some attachments so you can see how easy +/- side counts are to keep and also +/- side counts are EXACT whereas side counts of individual ranks are approximate because decks played are approximate. People resist change and if they have been using HO2 with ASC for years then they do not want to change.
+ - side counts1.jpg
+ - side counts2.jpg
+ - side counts3.jpg
+ - side counts4.jpg
+ - side counts5.jpg
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-24-2019 at 04:31 PM.
I give up; I don't understand a word of this.
Counting surplus or defecit aces is as simple as +1 and -1. 8 aces can be the days of the week, if you need a crutch. This works well in DD. Sunday is the first Ace. Monday the second, and so on until next Sunday (8 aces seen).
You should see an ace every quarter deck. If you don't, you're +1 ace. If you see 2, you're -1 ace. How in the world is this harder than memorizing a salad bar?
To each his own, though. If this system works for you, go for it. I sincerely hope you use it well to win scads of money. I'll pass, though.
I am playing 6D, thus I need 24 objects to represent 24 aces. Basically four objects on the right side of the top shelf represent the first deck. Four objects on the left side of the top shelf represent the second deck. Four objects on the right side of the middle shelf represent the third deck. Four objects on the left side of the middle shelf represent the fourth deck. Four objects on the right side of the bottom shelf represent the fifth deck. Four objects on the left side of the bottom shelf represent the sixth deck.
According to the link below, here is what casinos are looking for when they are trying to determine if someone is counting or not.
https://www.888casino.com/blog/black...illustrious-18
They teach their staff the HL and I18 and look for player bet sizes and for I18 deviations, especially insurance. For insurance use the pseudo Ten count, Tc = HL + AA78mTc and if Tc >= 4*dr then take insurance. CC(AA78mTc, HL) = 20% and SD(AA78mTc) = SD(HL). So AA78mTc can vary almost independently of the HL and its swings in count values is equal to the HL swings. So suppose HL = 6*dr and so you have your maximum bet out. If AA78mTc < -2*dr then Tc < 4*dr and so you would not be taking insurance when the casino would see a large HL true count and your large bet and so think you should take insurance. Likewise, if HL= dr and AA78mTc >= 3*dr then Tc >= 4*dr and so you would be taking insurance. Casino would see you taking insurance at HL true count of 1 and figure you do not know what you are doing.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 01-25-2019 at 02:22 AM.
I do see the value of a more complex count for cover. I have seen the Tarzan count in action. You look like a lucky bastard vs a card counter.
I suspect, however, that I'd make so many mistakes, that there would be no need for cover. To each his own, though. I find HiOpt2 easy, but could not get my mind around halves. If this works for you, do it.
If they're tracking you in real time, you'll probably get a little more time, but even with a count tracking mid cards, the money is still moving mostly based on the high to low card ratio, and that can't be hidden.
If they're using software, which uses true edge, it won't matter.
P.S. I've seen the Tarzan count in action, too, at least the version he used 10-15 years ago.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks