Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[Three]

Look, I have done all this from a better starting point and with end goals in mind than you. Simulation is the only way to get anything accurate to make the best decision when comparing combined counts. I corresponded with Don and he said the only way was via simulation but eventually answered my question about other ways to compare combined counts to decide what was better for a decision. I tried every approximation but none gave even close to an accurate assessment of which count was better. Big surprise (sarcasm emoticon), Don was right. Count Correlation tells you nothing about performance. What EoRs are useful for is a place to start when setting up a counting system. Once the cards start to be dealt all the EoRs change because the ones we know are full deck EoRs and there is no longer a full deck. Simulation shows you the overall effect that each choice of combined count has on your results. CC just shows the result on the first hand out of the shoe. It is not a shoe average over the whole shoe, and doesn't take into consideration frequency of the matchup, the frequency the index is in play and what the bet size is on average when the index is in play. These are the deciding factors in choosing a best count just like they were for choosing the I18. All those charts you are posting are meaningless when it comes to playing a shoe of BJ, because CC has nothing to do with anything that will allow you to choose the best combined count.

[bjanalyst]

I used CC of various playing strategies to compare PE. I used Betting Correlation to compare BE. You need to use both. CC showed HL w AA78mTc and 5m6c beat HO2 w ASC with PE but HL was 2% below HO2 - 2*(Adef) for BC and when HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) was used SCORE gap was reduced but HL system still lost because BC was still over 1% below HO2 w ASC.

[lij45o6]

Gronbog said he could also sim Late Surrender so I just emailed him these LS indices and values of k1 and k2 for KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c
KO AA89mTc 5m7c Late Surrender.jpg

I used CC of various playing strategies to compare PE. I used Betting Correlation to compare BE. You need to use both. CC showed HL w AA78mTc and 5m6c beat HO2 w ASC with PE but HL was 2% below HO2 - 2*(Adef) for BC and when HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) was used SCORE gap was reduced but HL system still lost because BC was still over 1% below HO2 w ASC.

And a wild guess here: You system will still under-perform HOII w/ ASC.

[bjanalyst]

KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 w ASC in the vast majority of CC so its beats HO2 w ASC in PE. Also BC of KO system beats HO2 system. So KO system will beat HO2 w ASC. Just wait for simulations and you will see.

[Three]

KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beats HO2 w ASC in the vast majority of CC so its beats HO2 w ASC in PE. Also BC of KO system beats HO2 system. So KO system will beat HO2 w ASC. Just wait for simulations and you will see.

All of Gronbogs sims, Don's help, an all the other people helping you understand things in this thread and you still haven't learned anything. CC ha nothing to do with sim results. Sim results are from the interaction of many components like betting accuracy, playing decision accuracy, variance, and bet size. I am talking the interaction between all these things. The individual performance of each is meaningless. CC is even more meaningless.