What Justifies your max bet and why?

[Secretariat]

I am not sure I could handle another side count as I'm still perfecting the base and side count I use now. With that said, I understand the concept of using the 8,9 density for specific plays like hitting 12 even when main count says not to. I play mainly 6 deck so my main question is how does the 8,9 density affect your betting only? I was very familiar with Tarzans 4 column count years ago but do not understand how the 8,9 only affects betting since I already count the 6,7.
Thanks

The effect of removal of a single 7 remains +0.5. and the EOR of a 9 remains -.5. The EOR for 8 remains 0.

However, if there's a significant total of 789s removed that changes the odds of getting blackjacks.
Unless I am mistaken, Tarzan counted +0.33 for each 6,7 and 8 removed above normal. He kept the 9 separate but that's for Advanced Tarzan and not Basic Tarzan.

May I ask why you don't play Tarzan anymore. Did you know all his charts for strategy deviations?

[Cacarulo]

I am not sure I could handle another side count as I'm still perfecting the base and side count I use now. With that said, I understand the concept of using the 8,9 density for specific plays like hitting 12 even when main count says not to. I play mainly 6 deck so my main question is how does the 8,9 density affect your betting only? I was very familiar with Tarzans 4 column count years ago but do not understand how the 8,9 only affects betting since I already count the 6,7.
Thanks

The density of 8s and 9s, as you rightly say, can be useful for hitting on 12 but not for improving your betting. The 9 alone does help a bit, but not together with the 8.
In the enhanced document of CAC2, you have all the best ways to improve betting. Perhaps it works in other systems.

Sincerely,
Cac

[8675309]

The density of 8s and 9s, as you rightly say, can be useful for hitting on 12 but not for improving your betting. The 9 alone does help a bit, but not together with the 8.
In the enhanced document of CAC2, you have all the best ways to improve betting. Perhaps it works in other systems.

Sincerely,
Cac

Thank you, that's exactly what I was curious about.

[8675309]

The effect of removal of a single 7 remains +0.5. and the EOR of a 9 remains -.5. The EOR for 8 remains 0.

However, if there's a significant total of 789s removed that changes the odds of getting blackjacks.
Unless I am mistaken, Tarzan counted +0.33 for each 6,7 and 8 removed above normal. He kept the 9 separate but that's for Advanced Tarzan and not Basic Tarzan.

May I ask why you don't play Tarzan anymore. Did you know all his charts for strategy deviations?

I didn't fully learn his system. At the time I think he was still in the early stages of figuring out how to teach it to someone else. He called me his "crash test dummy". He wanted to see if others could do what he did and when he found out that I had figured out allot of what he was doing then he wanted to meet me. I think it made him more interested when he found our I was a high school graduate that worked a blue collar job. I was pretty decent at the 3 column count and hadn't added the aces in the mix yet. I was just discouraged about ever having a bankroll big enough to play and self doubt about learning the system itself. He was very good to me the brief time I spent with him.

[Secretariat]

I was pretty decent at the 3 column count and hadn't added the aces in the mix yet. I was just discouraged about ever having a bankroll big enough to play and self doubt about learning the system itself. He was very good to me the brief time I spent with him.

Adding up three columns and zeroing down is strange at first but can become second nature fairly quickly. Adding the aces leads to instantaneous perfect insurance which is great. Congrats on understanding early the importance of having a proper bankroll. Anyway you're lucky to have learned from two highly creative minds Tarzan, and now Cac.

[8675309]

Adding up three columns and zeroing down is strange at first but can become second nature fairly quickly. Adding the aces leads to instantaneous perfect insurance which is great. Congrats on understanding early the importance of having a proper bankroll. Anyway you're lucky to have learned from two highly creative minds Tarzan, and now Cac.

I totally agree with you on the two great minds. I am very fortunate to have been taught by them.

[Secretariat]

The density of 8s and 9s, as you rightly say, can be useful for hitting on 12 but not for improving your betting. The 9 alone does help a bit, but not together with the 8.
In the enhanced document of CAC2, you have all the best ways to improve betting. Perhaps it works in other systems.

Sincerely,
Cac

Hi Cac! Out of curiosity, I looked at two extreme situations at KC's BJSTRAT in order to better understand how neutral cards 789s could affect betting. Theoretically 7s and 9s, cancel each oher out and 8s do not affect betting but there seems to be a cumulative effect when the probability of blackjacks is higher. Here's what I got in extreme but impossible situations for 6D, H17, DAS in middle deck.

A)12/12/12/12/12/12/12/12/48/12
EV Basic strategy = -0.548 EV Best strategy (-0.5477)

B) 12/12/12/12/12/0/0/0/48/12
EV Basic strategy = -1.770 EV Best strategy (+1,955)

C) 12/12/12/12/12/24/24/24/48/12
EV Basic strategy = -1.005 EV Best strategy = (+0.283)

As expected, basic strategy in extreme situations is a big loser (at least -1% in this case)
*** BS would win in positive counts though

Best Strategy helps in C) when there is overrepresentation of 789s

Best Strategy with absence of 789s (B) yields a nearly 2% (1.955) advantage when BJs are most likely. That"s nearly 4% better than B.S.

I don't know how other counting systems, including CAC2 (which I don't know the details) can detect and take advantage of the unbalanced state of 789s vs other cards.

Thoughts about playing... and betting decisions?

[Cacarulo]

Hi Cac! Out of curiosity, I looked at two extreme situations at KC's BJSTRAT in order to better understand how neutral cards 789s could affect betting. Theoretically 7s and 9s, cancel each oher out and 8s do not affect betting but there seems to be a cumulative effect when the probability of blackjacks is higher. Here's what I got in extreme but impossible situations for 6D, H17, DAS in middle deck.

A)12/12/12/12/12/12/12/12/48/12
EV Basic strategy = -0.548 EV Best strategy (-0.5477)

B) 12/12/12/12/12/0/0/0/48/12
EV Basic strategy = -1.770 EV Best strategy (+1,955)

C) 12/12/12/12/12/24/24/24/48/12
EV Basic strategy = -1.005 EV Best strategy = (+0.283)

As expected, basic strategy in extreme situations is a big loser (at least -1% in this case)
*** BS would win in positive counts though

Best Strategy helps in C) when there is overrepresentation of 789s

Best Strategy with absence of 789s (B) yields a nearly 2% (1.955) advantage when BJs are most likely. That"s nearly 4% better than B.S.

I don't know how other counting systems, including CAC2 (which I don't know the details) can detect and take advantage of the unbalanced state of 789s vs other cards.

Thoughts about playing... and betting decisions?

Hi Sec,

The problem is that only CA programs can detect the best strategy. In my opinion, the best way to evaluate side counts is through correlation analysis.
In the case of side counts that favor betting, it's ideal to analyze the BC or BE by adding different side counts and seeing which one correlates better.
Let's take Hi-Lo as an example. For 6D, H17, the BC = 0.9645.
What would the BC be if I incorporate a side count for sevens (7=+1)? BC = 0.9676, which is the BC of TKO and improves the initial BC.
If instead of sevens, I incorporate a side count for nines (9=-1)? BC = 0.9620. This means that the nine doesn't improve the initial BC.
If I incorporate both the 7 (+1) and the 9 (-1)? BC = 0.9606, which is the BC of Silver-Fox and also does not improve the initial BC.

Keep in mind that if the side count is in blocks, I would be assigning the same value to each card. HL/789 (+1,+1,+1) would give me a BC = 0.8688
and HL/789 (-1, -1, -1) would give me a BC = 0.8699. HL/79 (-1, -1) = 0.8865, HL/79 (+1,+1) = 0.8974, HL/78 (+1, +1) = 0.9293, HL/78 (-1, -1) = 0.8547.

So, for Hi-Lo, the only side count that favors betting is the one for sevens. Of course, the idea is to maintain the same level of the initial count (level 1).
Taking values of +0.5 or -0.5 would already transform the system into a level 2 one.

An interesting exercise I recommend you do is the following: try to do the same thing you did previously with the block of 789s but only with the 7s.

Sincerely,
Cac

PS: Sorry, can't give details about CAC2.

[Secretariat]

Hi Sec,
An interesting exercise I recommend you do is the following: try to do the same thing you did previously with the block of 789s but only with the 7s.
.

Not surprisingly using same as above with 0x12, 12x8 and 12x9 the EV is positive (+0.525 with Basic strategy and +1.35 with Best strategy. With 24x7sm 12x8 and 12x9, EV is negative (-1.609 basic strategy and -1.263 with best strategy. You did mention a while ago that HiLo with a side count of sevens outperformed HiLo with a side count of aces.

However, my post wasn't about the tag values but about the cumulative effect of 789s.
All three counts of previous post yielded a 0 HiLo true count.

The EV goes up as the ratio of 789s gets deeper under the norm for the Best Strategy player.
This reinfoces the concept of Quality True Count being helpful to the "informed" player. In the previous post, option B is a strong quality true count of 0 (almost +2% EV) for the "perfect strategy player" but is a weak quality true count of 0 (-1.77%) fpr the basic strategy player.

I don't know what the proper statement would be but it seems that we can say that an overrepresentation of 789s leads to a weaker EV when one cannot detect the situation with his/her main count.

How would you describe that cumulative effect of neutral cards when it doesn't make a difference to the main count?

[Cacarulo]

Not surprisingly using same as above with 0x12, 12x8 and 12x9 the EV is positive (+0.525 with Basic strategy and +1.35 with Best strategy. With 24x7sm 12x8 and 12x9, EV is negative (-1.609 basic strategy and -1.263 with best strategy. You did mention a while ago that HiLo with a side count of sevens outperformed HiLo with a side count of aces.

However, my post wasn't about the tag values but about the cumulative effect of 789s.
All three counts of previous post yielded a 0 HiLo true count.

But with the count of sevens, the true count of Hi-Lo is also zero.

The EV goes up as the ratio of 789s gets deeper under the norm for the Best Strategy player.
This reinfoces the concept of Quality True Count being helpful to the "informed" player. In the previous post, option B is a strong quality true count of 0 (almost +2% EV) for the "perfect strategy player" but is a weak quality true count of 0 (-1.77%) fpr the basic strategy player.

I think you could do more tests with different blocks and see which one is the most effective. For example: 78s, 89s, 79s, 8s, and 9s.

I don't know what the proper statement would be but it seems that we can say that an overrepresentation of 789s leads to a weaker EV when one cannot detect the situation with his/her main count.

How would you describe that cumulative effect of neutral cards when it doesn't make a difference to the main count?

The problem is that for me, the information provided by that block (789s) is not something I can capitalize on. However, the information provided by the 7s, yes.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Secretariat]

I think you could do more tests with different blocks and see which one is the most effective. For example: 78s, 89s, 79s, 8s, and 9s.
Cac

With Best Strategy at TC0 using HiLo
the winner is absence of 78s (EV= +2.48 for 0x7 and 0x8))
second place is absence of 789s (EV = +1.955 (0x7, 0x8, 0x9))
third place is absence of 7s (EV= +1.35 (0x7))

[Cacarulo]

With Best Strategy at TC0 using HiLo
the winner is absence of 78s (EV= +2.48 for 0x7 and 0x8))
second place is absence of 789s (EV = +1.955 (0x7, 0x8, 0x9))
third place is absence of 7s (EV= +1.35 (0x7))

Interesting. And how would it look with basic strategy?
Finally, how would you capitalize on that information?

Sincerely,
Cac

[Secretariat]

Interesting. And how would it look with basic strategy?
Finally, how would you capitalize on that information?

With Basic strategy the winner is an absence of 7s (+0.5257)
Second place is an overload of 9s (+0.2253)
Third place is an overload of 89s (+0.187)

Those are the only positive EVs at TC0
When there is an overload of 7s and 9s, EV goes down to -0.953

How to capitalize on those situations?
You and I discussed that privately a while ago and you came up with a sim
showing that HiLo can be upgraded to Halves level and
probably higher if we had gone further in refining the system.

By the way, the Gmail address I had at the time is not operational anymore.