Hey, can anyone confirm that in John Auston's "World's Greatest Simulation Charts" that when the simulation was run, it was run using the playing indices based just off of the true count, but the betting counts were based off the true count with ace adjustment. If betting counts were calculated strictly using the true count without a side count of aces, my advantage would be much higher than the simulations suggest. Also, if playing counts included aces, that would also lower the advantage.
> Hey, can anyone confirm that in John Auston's
> "World's Greatest Simulation Charts" that
> when the simulation was run, it was run using the
> playing indices based just off of the true count, but
> the betting counts were based off the true count with
> ace adjustment. If betting counts were calculated
> strictly using the true count without a side count of
> aces, my advantage would be much higher than the
> simulations suggest. Also, if playing counts included
> aces, that would also lower the advantage.
It's been quite awhile since I ran those sims with SBA, but I don't think the software version I used let you bet with a side count.
Using a side count for betting would have been something I would have specifically called out in the text that precedes the charts, and I didn't do that, so there you go.
Thank you for the note about the preface. In the preface you described the AO2 as a count that "does not 'value' the ace in it's main count, but instead keeps an ace side count, for enhanced betting efficiency." The current version of SBA definitly allows for a side counting of aces, and the simulation is copyrighted as 1997. The % W/L for a 2-Deck, H17, DAS spread of 1-6 with 70/104 cards dealt is 1.24, so my guess would be that if the aces weren't valued, then ace sidecount would significantly improve the playing capabilities of the system. I appreciate the response
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks