For HL player who refuses to switch to KO use 5m9c as a side count to HL

[bjanalyst]

Based on the clarifications you provided years ago, all your systems are based on "CC" which is trivial. Your measurements on various CC are thus trivial as well.

In your words, CC = Correlation Coefficient between the tag values of the (derived) count and the EoR (Effects of Removal).

Compared to Halves which doesn't restrict the tag values to 1, 0, -1. The tag value of Halves can be close to ideal tag value in nature without any side count modifications. If SCORE is good, then a proposed new counting system is good.

What you are quoting is the EoR for betting for S17, DAS, LS and then you are claiming without proof that the derived count is not as good as Wong's Halves which is a level 3 count.

Well the derived KO + (1/2)*(5m9c) is a level three count. You can create higher level derived counts by taking linear combinations of the primacy count and the side count(s).

Attached again is the PDF called HL w 5m9c vs Wongs Halves I sent in one of my earlier posts, that you are referring to. comparing the BCC of HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) with Wong's Halves. Note column X3 which is the derived count HL + (1/2)*(5m9c). Note that HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) is a level three count with the fives counts as 1.5 and the nines counts as (-1/2) just like Wong's Halves a shown in column 4 of this exhibit. Also note the differences between column's 3 and 4. The only difference between Wong's Halves and HL+ (1/2)*(5m9c) is that in Wong's Halves the 2's are counted as +1/2 and the sevens are counted as +1/2 and in HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) the 2's are counted as +1 and the sevens are counted as zero.

To convince yourself the HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) is actually a level 3 count perform the following experiment. Take two decks of cards and count down one of the two decks. First count that one deck with HL. Then take the cards already counted and count them again with 5m9c. Finally take the cards already counted and count with HL + (1/2)*(5m9c), that is count with the tag values of +1 for 2,3,4,6, 1.5 for 5's. zero of 7,8, (-1/2) for 9's and -1 for T's and Aces. Then take (1/2) of the value of 5m9c and HL that you counted to get HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) and compare with the value of the level 3 HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) counted directly with its tag values and you will see they are identical. Repeat this experiment as often as you like and you will see it works every single time. So what you did here was create a level 3 count from two level one counts.

And you mention that you use SCORE to determine which system is best. SCORE is intimately related with my Weighed Average CC which is sort of like Playing Efficiency and with the Betting CC which is related to Betting Efficiency. If WACC increases, SCORE increases, if BCC increases, SCORE increases. As I stated in many prior posts, in over 20 simulations Gronbog has done, every single time either the WACC increased for the BCC increased the SCORE increased.

Also someone said they were gong to run sims on HL w 5m9c. I already gave you what my prediction of the sim results will be by comparing HL w 5m9c WACC and BCC with Wong's. WACC of HL w 5m9c came in 1.8% higher than WH and BCC came in 0.9% below Wong's Halves - refer to a previous post for details. BE is more important than PE for the shoe game. So a 0.9% improvement in BE of WH over HL w 5m9c is countered with a 1.8% increase in WACC of HL w 5m9c over WH. Since BE is around twice as important as PE for the shoe game, the two indicators sort of balance out which is why I stated that my prediction when sims are done on HL w 5m9c that the SCORE of HL w 5m9c will be very close to the SCORE of WH's.

I hope whoever does the sims will post their results of HL w 5m9c verses WH so that my predictions based on CC will be proven to be correct once again.

So attached is the BCC PDF I mentioned earlier in this post and which was attached to a previous post.
HL w 5m9c vs Wongs Halves.pdf

[lij45o6]

What you are quoting is the EoR for betting for S17, DAS, LS and then you are claiming without proof that the derived count is not as good as Wong's Halves which is a level 3 count.

Well the derived KO + (1/2)*(5m9c) is a level three count. You can create higher level derived counts by taking linear combinations of the primacy count and the side count(s).

Attached again is the PDF called HL w 5m9c vs Wongs Halves I sent in one of my earlier posts, that you are referring to. comparing the BCC of HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) with Wong's Halves. Note column X3 which is the derived count HL + (1/2)*(5m9c). Note that HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) is a level three count with the fives counts as 1.5 and the nines counts as (-1/2) just like Wong's Halves a shown in column 4 of this exhibit. Also note the differences between column's 3 and 4. The only difference between Wong's Halves and HL+ (1/2)*(5m9c) is that in Wong's Halves the 2's are counted as +1/2 and the sevens are counted as +1/2 and in HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) the 2's are counted as +1 and the sevens are counted as zero.

To convince yourself the HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) is actually a level 3 count perform the following experiment. Take two decks of cards and count down one of the two decks. First count that one deck with HL. Then take the cards already counted and count them again with 5m9c. Finally take the cards already counted and count with HL + (1/2)*(5m9c), that is count with the tag values of +1 for 2,3,4,6, 1.5 for 5's. zero of 7,8, (-1/2) for 9's and -1 for T's and Aces. Then take (1/2) of the value of 5m9c and HL that you counted to get HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) and compare with the value of the level 3 HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) counted directly with its tag values and you will see they are identical. Repeat this experiment as often as you like and you will see it works every single time. So what you did here was create a level 3 count from two level one counts.

And you mention that you use SCORE to determine which system is best. SCORE is intimately related with my Weighed Average CC which is sort of like Playing Efficiency and with the Betting CC which is related to Betting Efficiency. If WACC increases, SCORE increases, if BCC increases, SCORE increases. As I stated in many prior posts, in over 20 simulations Gronbog has done, every single time either the WACC increased for the BCC increased the SCORE increased.

Also someone said they were gong to run sims on HL w 5m9c. I already gave you what my prediction of the sim results will be by comparing HL w 5m9c WACC and BCC with Wong's. WACC of HL w 5m9c came in 1.8% higher than WH and BCC came in 0.9% below Wong's Halves - refer to a previous post for details. BE is more important than PE for the shoe game. So a 0.9% improvement in BE of WH over HL w 5m9c is countered with a 1.8% increase in WACC of HL w 5m9c over WH. Since BE is around twice as important as PE for the shoe game, the two indicators sort of balance out which is why I stated that my prediction when sims are done on HL w 5m9c that the SCORE of HL w 5m9c will be very close to the SCORE of WH's.

I hope whoever does the sims will post their results of HL w 5m9c verses WH so that my predictions based on CC will be proven to be correct once again.

So attached is the BCC PDF I mentioned earlier in this post and which was attached to a previous post.
HL w 5m9c vs Wongs Halves.pdf

You fundamentally misunderstand what you are doing here.

You know how I can beat your system *without* using your bullshit secondary counts? Not playing negative TC rounds. Simple.

You post garbage nonsense, evangelizing like you discovered some new secret to blackjack when you haven't. Griffin beat you too it! In fact, the way he reasoned multi-parametric counting is vastly simpler *and* more powerful! You are barking up the wrong tree!

You know why we side count the Ace as a single rank? Two bennies : 1.) For betting purposes (in non-reckoned systems like HiOpt II,) and 2.) For playing purposes. You only need to keep a single running count on the number of Aces seen and adjusting to a *small* (yes, small) set of MP indices to get the appropriate gains needed.

I think I remember telling you that there are only a hand full of playing decisions that are worth anything: Hard 16-12 vs T, Hard 12 vs 2-4, Hard 13 vs 2-3, and Insurance. Everything else is an additional advantage if you want it. However, you aren't even going there!?

And, again, you are taking something simple and making it needlessly complex than it needs to be! And for some negligible gain in advantage! (I pray you are *not* using this in shoe games!)

If you are looking at MP counting, *please* re-read Griffin *again*. Try to best understand what he is trying to say, and apply his reasoning to simple blackjack play. The place you also need to look at is his EOR tables for playing decisions. Take any of your funny "counts" and apply a CC analysis for hard 16 vs 10. Find the CC for High Low. Next, do a CC analysis for High Low for the same hand, but this time, take into consideration that you are now performing a Rank Side Count for each card Ace to Ten. Basically, what you see is that each rank is weighted differently. (duh!) Take this idea and now look at *all* the hands in Griffins table. Can you see why sticking with a fixed secondary "count" may not be the best use of your brain?

I have a feeling the answer is "Of course not. I am too dense to see past my own face and think that I am a genius." Then you will go on to post the same verbal(textual?) diarrhoea over and over, wasting your time and everyone else. All you are doing is wasting space and adding the potential of leading newbies astray.

MP counting is an art and a skill. What you are doing is an insult to everyone's intelligence who can read past this...including guys like me who have taken time to use and study MP play.

If you were smart, you would be asking questions...not scoffing at every pro AP's rebuff. But of course, you are the one with a college degree. That makes you better than us.

Please stop unless you are willing to learn seriously.

[21forme]

Well said, dogman!

[Jack Jackson]

You fundamentally misunderstand what you are doing here.

You know how I can beat your system *without* using your bullshit secondary counts? Not playing negative TC rounds. Simple.

You post garbage nonsense, evangelizing like you discovered some new secret to blackjack when you haven't. Griffin beat you too it! In fact, the way he reasoned multi-parametric counting is vastly simpler *and* more powerful! You are barking up the wrong tree!

You know why we side count the Ace as a single rank? Two bennies : 1.) For betting purposes (in non-reckoned systems like HiOpt II,) and 2.) For playing purposes. You only need to keep a single running count on the number of Aces seen and adjusting to a *small* (yes, small) set of MP indices to get the appropriate gains needed.

I think I remember telling you that there are only a hand full of playing decisions that are worth anything: Hard 16-12 vs T, Hard 12 vs 2-4, Hard 13 vs 2-3, and Insurance. Everything else is an additional advantage if you want it. However, you aren't even going there!?

And, again, you are taking something simple and making it needlessly complex than it needs to be! And for some negligible gain in advantage! (I pray you are *not* using this in shoe games!)

If you are looking at MP counting, *please* re-read Griffin *again*. Try to best understand what he is trying to say, and apply his reasoning to simple blackjack play. The place you also need to look at is his EOR tables for playing decisions. Take any of your funny "counts" and apply a CC analysis for hard 16 vs 10. Find the CC for High Low. Next, do a CC analysis for High Low for the same hand, but this time, take into consideration that you are now performing a Rank Side Count for each card Ace to Ten. Basically, what you see is that each rank is weighted differently. (duh!) Take this idea and now look at *all* the hands in Griffins table. Can you see why sticking with a fixed secondary "count" may not be the best use of your brain?

I have a feeling the answer is "Of course not. I am too dense to see past my own face and think that I am a genius." Then you will go on to post the same verbal(textual?) diarrhoea over and over, wasting your time and everyone else. All you are doing is wasting space and adding the potential of leading newbies astray.

MP counting is an art and a skill. What you are doing is an insult to everyone's intelligence who can read past this...including guys like me who have taken time to use and study MP play.

If you were smart, you would be asking questions...not scoffing at every pro AP's rebuff. But of course, you are the one with a college degree. That makes you better than us.

Please stop unless you are willing to learn seriously.

But at least his book is on sale>https://www.amazon.com/Blackjack-Tab.../dp/1524508020

[ShipTheCookies]

$870???? Excuse me while I barf....

[bjanalyst]

But at least his book is on sale>https://www.amazon.com/Blackjack-Tab.../dp/1524508020

Please do not use that version of my book. It is an old version. I had published with Xlibris and they never paid me any royalties and never given any sales reports. Any books still for sale should be left overs as I instructed Xlibris last year I was firing them and to stop publishing my books. And I googled the Internet and I found out I wasn't the only one they never paid any royalties to. I found over 200 complaints by various authors that they never paid any royalties.

So I will be self publishing my books by myself before the end of the year and I have completely re-done my books. Also the price will be very reasonable.

[ZeeBabar]

Please do not use that version of my book. It is an old version. I had published with Xlibris and they never paid me any royalties and never given any sales reports. Any books still for sale should be left overs as I instructed Xlibris last year I was firing them and to stop publishing my books.. And I googled the Internet and I found out I wasn't the only one they never paid any royalties to. I found over 200 complaints by various authors that they never paid any royalties.

So I will be self publishing my books by myself before the end of the year and I have completely re-done my books. Also the price will be very reasonable.

Hopefully. Your book is easy to read and under a couple of hundred pages. Your book reviews on Amazon are really unusual. I have never seen a book that has exactly 50% give it 5 stars and 50% give one star with nothing in between.

[BJGenius007]

But at least his book is on sale>https://www.amazon.com/Blackjack-Tab.../dp/1524508020

https://www.amazon.com/Ko-5m7c-Aa89m...xt=.+Bjanalyst

How much does it cost you to make these hard hard books? And how many did you sell through Amazon? I believe Amazon wouldn't eat your sales like the other publisher did.

[BJGenius007]

But at least his book is on sale>https://www.amazon.com/Blackjack-Tab.../dp/1524508020

bjanalyst has seven books on sale at Amazon. More than Norm!

https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbook...line_sr_book_1

[ZeeBabar]

bjanalyst has seven books on sale at Amazon. More than Norm!

https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbook...line_sr_book_1

Interesting to read the reviews! Don’t look like too many sales. Since no one is reading those, maybe he gets more readers here!

[BJGenius007]

$870???? Excuse me while I barf....

Probably because Bjanalyst did not print many copies on the first print, so it is a rare collector's item.

[bjanalyst]

You fundamentally misunderstand what you are doing here.

You know how I can beat your system *without* using your bullshit secondary counts? Not playing negative TC rounds. Simple..

I am not going to argue with you and even try to explain what I did as you obviously do not understand.

I will just attach the sim results of my count KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c which I will call KO+ for shorthand.

Please look at all three pages of the attached PDF.

The first page is KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c with the very best Tarzan count for the no LS game.

If you notice both KO+ and Tarzan handily beats HO2 w ASC. Also KO+ beat Tarzan for back counted games but Tarzan beat KO+ for play all. This is because in Gronbog's sims I did not give many negative indices as I had done my calculations for back counted games. When negative indices are not included then the sim program use basic strategy and in large negative counts, there are many hopeless doubles and splits with basic strategy. If I had provided Gronbog a full set of negative indices the results for KO+ play all would have been greatly improved.

You will notice that I also included KO+ for the LS game which again handily beat HO2 w ASC.

I asked Gronbog for Tarzan results for the LS game. Gronbog said Tarzan sims for LS were done but Tarzan did not authorize to have his results published. This makes you wonder just how flexible Tarzan count is. I had every one of my sim results published as I have nothing to hide and every time the CC increased, so did the SCORE.

As far as HL w 5m9c goes, I gave you my predications on that. I said it should tie Wong's Halves and will fall far short of HO2 w ASC and that the SCORE of HL w 5m9c would probably close the gap between HL and HO2 w ASC by 50%. The HL is not a good count to use as a primary count so improvements are limited. But adding a simple 5m9c to HL is an easy adjustment and I predict will give a significant improvement in HL.

Another reader has agreed to do sims on HL w 5m9c and said he would publish results and you can then see if my predictions are correct.

So attached is the sim results I mentioned earlier of KO+. So go ahead and try to beat my bullshit KO+ count system. You will need sims done for proof. [REDACTED]
Attachment 4318

[bjanalyst]

Hopefully. Your book is easy to read and under a couple of hundred pages. Your book reviews on Amazon are really unusual. I have never seen a book that has exactly 50% give it 5 stars and 50% give one star with nothing in between.

I get 5 stars from blackjack readers who really understand the game and can see that I am correct. I get 1 star from frauds who do not know what they are talking about.