> All 22 of them you mean? I can do that.
The indices are "basically" the same as Hi-lo minus 4. Insurance instead of being +3 would be -1. You can generate your own set by using any of the available simulators (CVData or SBA).
The point of these side-counted systems is that you can use them the way you like it best.
In the case of Hi-Lo you can "adjust" the count before BETTING or you can "adjust" before PLAYING. For the latter you need to be very fast.
First I would describe the former:
Your PC (primary count) would be:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1
with the corresponding IRC (-4 * #decks). The set of indices is generated for this PC.
Your SC (secondary count) is the side-count of aces:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
with also the corresponding IRC (-4 * #decks)
For betting purposes you simply do PC - SC. Your TC would be [PC - SC]/DR (decks remaining).
Note that PC - SC is simply the Hi-Lo count.
For playing purposes you use the PC.
If you want to "adjust" before PLAYING:
Your PC (primary count) would be:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
-1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1
Your SC (secondary count) is the side-count of aces:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
with the corresponding IRC (-4 * #decks).
For betting purposes you use the PC (Hi-Lo).
For playing purposes you use PC + SC. Your TC would be [PC + SC]/DR (decks remaining). The set of indices is generated for PC + SC.
> While I generally believe simpler is better,
> how hard is it really? Also, I'm guessing
> with the progress made in calc'ing things
> such as this, Cac might be right and Wong ..
> wrong.
By the time Wong did his calculations there were no SCORE, no optimal bets and the method used for side-counting aces was a little cumbersome for my taste. That is probably the reason for not getting a better performance.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac
Bookmarks