Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[Three]

You take simple and make it more complicated than what you are hoping to do better than, namely Hiopt2/ASC, which is pretty simple if you take the time to master adding and subtracting by 1 AND 2 (I know you your marketing ploy is to say you find this too hard to master but most can't get out of elementary school without mastering it) and keeping a simple straight side count (I know most have more difficulty mastering keeping more than one count than any other addition but it is a straight side count rather than a balanced one so with a little practice it is pretty easy). So basically you take a system whose positives were it is simple and make it harder than any other count lust to do about as well as the easy complex count you have now made several extra weeks to try and beat. When you fell way short your count was more complicated than Hiopt2/ASC. Now it is ridiculously complicated and almost beat it, so you make it even more complicated in the hopes that that will beat it. In the end, if you do beat Hiopt2/ASC, what you have proven is you don't have the common sense required to develop a relatively easy more complex approach that is a top performer. You don't know when you are making things harder for most people to get worse results. Start with a strong count and go through all this and you will have something really strong. That might be worth it. But all you are going to end up proving is people would be crazy to use something so ridiculously complicated as what you are proposing for no real gain over a relatively easy complex system that could take the same tweaks and really have big improvements. Like I said at the beginning of the thread you have worked everything backwards if your goal is to improve on what complex systems can do. Your system is very complex and everyone can see that. When you deny that fact, as you have repeatedly, you erode all your credibility.

[bjanalyst]

You take simple and make it more complicated than what you are hoping to do better than, namely Hiopt2/ASC, which is pretty simple if you take the time to master adding and subtracting by 1 AND 2 (I know you your marketing ploy is to say you find this too hard to master but most can't get out of elementary school without mastering it) and keeping a simple straight side count (I know most have more difficulty mastering keeping more than one count than any other addition but it is a straight side count rather than a balanced one so with a little practice it is pretty easy). So basically you take a system whose positives were it is simple and make it harder than any other count lust to do about as well as the easy complex count you have now made several extra weeks to try and beat. When you fell way short your count was more complicated than Hiopt2/ASC. Now it is ridiculously complicated and almost beat it, so you make it even more complicated in the hopes that that will beat it. In the end, if you do beat Hiopt2/ASC, what you have proven is you don't have the common sense required to develop a relatively easy more complex approach that is a top performer. You don't know when you are making things harder for most people to get worse results. Start with a strong count and go through all this and you will have something really strong. That might be worth it. But all you are going to end up proving is people would be crazy to use something so ridiculously complicated as what you are proposing for no real gain over a relatively easy complex system that could take the same tweaks and really have big improvements. Like I said at the beginning of the thread you have worked everything backwards if your goal is to improve on what complex systems can do. Your system is very complex and everyone can see that. When you deny that fact, as you have repeatedly, you erode all your credibility.

Again, you are insisting that a level 2 HO2 count system as the primary count is simpler than the KO primary count. And it is not the fact that it cannot be kept but can it be kept for hours on end without exhaustion or errors and for the HO2 my answer is NO. In my opinion it is the HO2 which is complicated.

At any rate, I promised no more comments until Gronbog is done and your post made me break my promise. Let Gronbog finish the simulations.

Also I want to stress that I NEVER changed my system or recommendations. I published my 3rd and 4th books well before I posted anything on this forum. I made zero changes in what I wrote in my books. So you accusing me of changing my system to beat the HO2 is false. I have presented the system to test that was published BEFORE I ever made a single blackjack forum post. So NO, I did not make changes in my system to beat HO2 w ASC and to make it "more complicated". My KO system always beat the HO2 w ASC as originally published and in my opinion it is the HO2 w ASC that is complicated.


Only a few times are both k1 and k2 non-zero. Many time only one or the other or neither are non-zero So most of the time you are adding a multiple of just one number to the KO count. But to you that is difficult. I am done trying to teach addition and subtraction of small integers to you people.

So please NO MORE COMMENTS until simulations are complete.

[Three]

Again, you are insisting that a level 2 HO2 count system as the primary count is simpler than the KO primary count.

I said nothing of the sort. To rephrase to hope you can understand this time. You started with a low ceiling of how far added complexity can increase results by started with a simple count. You make it so complex it is ridiculous and still haven't outperformed the simplest version of Hiopt2/ASC, but are using something far more complicated than Hiopt2/ASC. YOUR system, not KO, is much much harder than basic Hiopt2/ASC. If you start with Hiopt2 and add added complexity from there you will see the same type of improvement you got for KO. The difference is you start with the effectiveness of your finished product and add on from there. The people you based your work on as you have sited earlier say the benefits of side counting is proportional to the strength of the starting count (From Alienated's research). If you are going to the trouble of side counting, why would you start with a relatively weak count when you know before you start the effort would have its largest return by starting with a strong count? So you started wrong and the best you can do is something about comparable to where you would have started if you used a relatively strong count to start adding things to.

Excerpts from Selective Side Counting with HOII (Long)
Previously posted By: Alienated:


"There would appear to be several benefits of using a higher level primary count, such as Hi Opt II with selective side counting, rather than a simple primary count, say Hi Opt I, while always side counting: (a) less side-count adjustments are required, since Hi Opt II (like other good higher level systems) is already quite strong on hit/stand decisions versus a small dealer upcard; b) less effort must be expended in side counting, given that the key denominations will often come out reasonably ‘normally’; c) losing the side-count information as a result of distractions will prove less costly, because the primary count alone will still enable strong play for most decisions.

...


Gains from side counting will be greatest for those decisions where: (i) the gains from perfect play are high and (ii) the primary Hi Opt II count performs poorly, thereby leaving considerable scope for improvement. Gains from perfect play depend upon volatility (as indicated by the sum of squares of the EORs) and the average disadvantage from violating basic strategy (Griffin’s ‘m’), as outlined by Griffin, pp.28-29. It is for situations where volatility is high, m is small, and Hi Opt II is weakly correlated with the EORs that the scope for improvement through side counting will be at its greatest.

The following two tables present approximations of the strategy gains that are attainable with ‘perfect play’ and ‘actual play’ using the Hi Opt II primary count. The table for perfect play is similar to Griffin’s p.30 chart except that, in the present case, the depth of dealing is always fixed at n = 20 cards remaining. This method is inferior to Griffin’s approach, which involves an averaging procedure to mimic the effects of strategy variation at different points in the deck. However, since the present concern is with the relative, not absolute, worth of various side counts and plays, this simplification will hopefully not cost too much.





Table 1. Perfect Play (1000th of percent)



2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A

-------------------------------------------------------------------

16 10 9 7 6 12 34 27 32 142 11

15 19 17 13 11 14 17 12 16 72 11

14 29 25 20 15 18 11 4 5 75 9

13 47 42 32 24 30 2 1 6 50 5

12 33 39 44 35 43 1 8 27 2

11 1 1 1 7 9 11 39 19

10 3 2 2 1 1 9 12 16 29 13

Ins 262

Total Strategy Gain = 1608.147

-------------------------------------------------------------------





___





Table 2a. HOII Gains (1000th of percent)



2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A

-------------------------------------------------------------------

16 8 6 4 2 4 5 6 14 106 10

15 15 12 8 5 7 2 2 6 55 6

14 24 20 15 11 13 2 1 2 24 3

13 38 34 26 19 22 3 1

12 23 32 40 31 36

11 1 1 3 6 8 33 18

10 2 1 1 6 10 14 20 12

Ins 239

Total Strategy Gain = 1077.741

...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2b. Percentage Contribution to HOII Gains



2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A

-------------------------------------------------------------------

16 .71 .57 .37 .22 .41 .42 .52 1.34 9.82 .92

15 1.39 1.11 .77 .51 .61 .18 .23 .59 5.12 .55

14 2.22 1.85 1.40 1.01 1.17 .18 .07 .18 2.27 .25

13 3.51 3.11 2.44 1.76 2.06 .31 .05

12 2.14 2.99 3.69 2.88 3.30

11 .08 .06 .05 .02 .01 .28 .52 .73 3.07 1.64

10 .17 .14 .10 .04 .03 .54 .91 1.34 1.83 1.09

Ins 2.21"



HOII Primary Count Strategy shortage from perfect play (1000th of percent):


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
KEY PLAYS
-------------------------------------------------------------------

16 2 3 3 4 8 29 21 18 38 1

15 4 5 5 6 7 15 10 10 17 5

14 5 5 5 4 5 9 3 3 51 6

13 9 8 6 5 8 2 1 6 47 4

12 10 7 4 4 7 0 8 1 27 2

11 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 3 6 1

10 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 9 1

Ins 23

Total Gains Difference from perfect play = 530.406



So extensive research was done showing that if you want to side count you should first learn a strong playing count system so the effort required is smaller to get a larger gain, yet you did just the opposite of the first rule of constructing a strong side counted system and started with a weak playing count. If you started with a strong playing count system like almost any ace neutral and/or multilevel system the effort required side counting would be less and the rewards would be more.