Hello!
Can I enter the contest with my own simulator? My count isn't supported by CVData or CVCX.
My simulator is fine tuned with those 2 brilliant pieces.
Thanks
Black 2, Red 7 count will not beat HL, KO, or Red 7 at least for betting.
I did not calculate the CC for a bunch of strategy changes, just betting but that is enough to convince me that B2R7 will not work. It comes in last place in betting efficiency.
Big difference between counting the 2's and 7's as +1/2 each as in what I call the HL2 in the attached PDF and counting the black 2's as 1, red 2's as zero, red 7's as 1 and black 7's as zero.
For betting S17, DAS, LS here are the betting CC as seen in the attacked PDF.
B2R7....95.17%
Red 7... 96.40%
HL........96.51%
KO.......96.51%
HL2......97.64%
Black2 Red 7.pdf
The suggestion I made in post 7 has a BC of 99.1% and is balanced.
There is less difference than people think in using different colors versus fractions in shoe games.
Also note that these calculations are not considered valid in unbalanced strategies.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Actually Red 7 performs better than HL but worse than KO.
The Red 7 is unbalanced at 2 per deck and KO is unbalanced at 4 per deck so these in calculating true counts.
balanced(Red 7) = Red 7 - 2*dp and balanced(KO) = KO - 4*dp and these balanced counts are used to calculate the true counts which is balanced(Red 7) / dr or balanced(KO) / dr where dp = decks played and dr = decks remaining.
If the truce counts are calculated then the Red 7 outperforms HL but underperforms KO.
See attached PDF.
Primary counts infinite deck CC comparision.pdf
Please don't make general statements like this. It's nonsense. And, when you find an infinite deck game, maybe -- just maybe -- your attachment might make sense. Seriously, there have been stats based upon actual conditions that are far better than the stuff you keep posting.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Attached are the betting CC of your two counts.
The counts you suggested have a betting CC of 94.49% and 95.51! not 99.1%.
Norm's level 1 count.pdf
I was just listing the results of the CC which show that your counts and the Black 2, Red 7 count all have a lower betting CC than HL, Red 7 and KO. That is a fact.
I used the lower betting CC to conclude that B2R7 is the worst count and I believe that is what you are disagreeing with.
Now you argue that the CC do not mean anything which is an entirely different argument and that the count you suggested and that B2R7 are really superior counts to HL, Red 7 and KO, that is an entirely different argument.
But just be aware that if you say that the CC do not mean anything then you are totally ignoring the results of around 20 simulation that showed that whenever the CC increased, even on a case by case basis, such as top 6 strategy changes of HL w 7m9c tested one at a time, the SCORE increased. There was not a single situation where the CC increased and the SCORE decreased.
Anyhow this entire constraint of keeping a level one count with no side counts is artificial and kind a silly.
I use KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c with chips which I can do effortless for hours on end and I play the six deck, five deck dealt game, S17, DAS, LS with Lucky Ladies and Super 4 side count and I do very well. And for LL I use KO + AA89mTc and for Super 4 I use KO - (AA89mTc + 5m9c).
As you are aware the KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc has been shown through Gronbog's sims to beat the pants off of the HO2 w ASC for every single play all and back counting scenario and for both LS and no LS.
And it should be noted that I derived my KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc entirely with infinite deck CC's and the LSL technique to derive indices.
So all I can say is that the CC have been shown to work very well.
I will leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 10-17-2020 at 08:13 PM.
I never said it was a fact that your count system was poorer than the HL, Red 7 and KO. That was not the fact I was talking about. That was a conclusion I drew from the lower CC of your counts which I did admit could be argued.
What I said were facts were
(1) The values of the CC for your counts, HL, Red 7 and KO and B2R7. I used the Excel function CORREL to get the betting CC for all of these various counts. The value of the CC for these various counts is the fact I was talking about.
(2) Gronbog's sims of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c beat HO2 w ASC for all scenarios.
Those were the facts I was talking about
And I specifically said let the readers draw their own conclusions based on the success of the CC in over 20 simulations and the fact that there has yet to be a single situation where the CC increased and the SCORE decreased.
I want to further point out that Tarzan who had simulations run for his count for both no LS and LS, Tarzan chose to publish the results of his count only for the no LS case and to withhold publication of the simulation results of his LS run. It makes one wonder if Tarzan has something to hide.
I would like to contrast that with myself. I had Gronbog publish every single simulation he did for me and in every simulation when the CC increased the SCORE increased.
I have nothing to hide and I have been 100% transparent.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 10-17-2020 at 09:07 PM.
Bookmarks