Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

Firstly, you have to stop skewing and rigging the performance of each system. If you say that your KO system will outperform the Hi-OPT II ASC. Secondly, if you want to skew and rig performance than I can guarantee you that Hi-OPT II ASC with LS and RSA rule will outperform your KO system. You know why? Because unbalanced counts doesn't work well with resplit aces. You want to be selective the game you should be playing is LS and RSA not just LS. Which is available in most high limit tables and you KO system doesn't outperform Hi-OPT II ASC with play all option.

Are you serious? I showed you that any unbalance count can be converted into a equivalent balance count. Balanced/unbalance makes no difference. Your statement about unbalanced counts not working for spltting Ace is as ridiculous as Norman's statement that EoR do not work with the KO count!

I used EoR to calculated the indices and values of k1 and k2 for my KO system which outperformed the HO2 w ASC for back counted game and once I add negative indices I believe it will also outperform the HO2 w ASC for the play all game. And if LS is added, my KO system will bury the HO2 w ASC. I was correct at every other prediction that I made and once simulations are done you will see that I am also correct about my LS prediction of my KO system performance .I have yet to be shown to have made any mistake (other than\ typos) in any of my calculations or any of my predictions! It should also be noted that EoR have been posted to four of five significant figures. If EoR are worthless and only give you an indication of playing strategy then why publish a rough estimate to five significant figures which does not seem like a rough estimate to me.

I am amazed by supposedly educated and talented players making such ridiculous, untrue and ludicrous statements. I will attach the exhibit of the unbalanced KO and its balanced version again which I attached before. You can make the KO count into a balance count so your argument about unbalance counts not working well with splitting Aces make no sense at all.

Here is the exhibit showing the balanced and unbalance version of the KO count. Ay unbalanced count can be made into a balance count and the fact that a count is unbalanced in no way affects the indices or values of k1 or k2 which includes splitting Aces.
KO & KO.bal.jpg

[seriousplayer]

Are you serious? I showed you that any unbalance count can be converted into a equivalent balance count. Balanced/unbalance makes no difference. Your statement about unbalanced counts not working for spltting Ace is as ridiculous as Norman's statement that EoR do not work with the KO count!

It is not ridiculous because I did a lot of simulation to verify that. Using unbalanced counts with true counts and without true counts and both came out to have lower SCORE that balanced counts with resplit aces rules. I don't know why but that is what the simulations show. If you turn KO count, an unbalanced count, to a balanced count it is no longer unbalanced. So my statement still holds true.

[bjanalyst]

It is not ridiculous because I did a lot of simulation to verify that. Using unbalanced counts with true counts and without true counts and both came out to have lower SCORE that balanced counts with resplit aces rules. I don't know why but that is what the simulations show. If you turn KO count, an unbalanced count, to a balanced count it is no longer unbalanced. So my statement still holds true.

I never heard of such drivel. I just showed you that the unbalanced KO count can be made into a balanced count. So now you have KO.bal and a KO unbalanced count. The indices of KO.bal annd KO are the same. Makes no difference if balanced or unbalanced. You can see that the CC between the blaance and unbalanced KO count is 100%. The counts are equvialtent. There must have been some other reason why there was a problem with splitting Ace that has nothing to do with the counts being balanced or unbalanced. I just do not know what happened with these simulations of splitting Aces but something other than balanced or unbalanced must have been in play.

Maybe it has to do with accuracy of true count calculations. You need a large negative index not to split Aces, So with a large negative index the true count calculations of the balanced KO for example which has a pivot at a true count of 4 and so is 4 true count points farther from the negative index of not splitting Aces as a balanced count with a pivot at a true count of zero would be. Maybe that is what is happening. But this has to do with inaccurate true counts due to errors in estimating decks remaining. If there was no error in estimation of decks remaining, then theoretically balanced or unbalanced would not make a difference.

[seriousplayer]

If there was no error in estimation of decks remaining, then theoretically balanced or unbalanced would not make a difference.

How do you know that? You are not an expert in Blackjack to say that. If you compare unbalanced count in running to balanced count with true count there is a different.

[bjanalyst]

How do you know that? You are not an expert in Blackjack to say that. If you compare unbalanced count in running to balanced count with true count there is a different.

I showed you an exhibit where the KO count could be converted into an equivalent balanced KO count. I also showed in that exhibit the CC of the balance and unbalanced KO count were 100% so these counts are equal and I used EoR for hard 16 v T hit/stand and showed that the CC and SLOPE with EoR for the KO and KO.bal were all equal and also the SD of the KO and KO.bal were equal . So indices of OK and KO.bal are all equal. The problem is in actual use and inaccuracies in true count calculations due to errors in estimation of decks remaining. I have showed ad nauseum that the farther form the pivot the more sensitive the true count calculations are to errors in estimating of decks remaining. The indices of KO and KO.bal are he same. What is different is how accurate the true count can be calculated because of errors in estimating decks remaining.

In my very first book KO with Table of Critical running counts I showed a simple table for true count calculation of the unbalance KO count. I have shown the formula many times also in this post. The formula is tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr where n =- number of decks. So unbalance true counts can be easily calculated. I will attach an exhibit explaining this which I am sure I attached previously.
KO & KO Balanced (1).jpg
KO & KO Balanced (2).jpg

[seriousplayer]

I showed you an exhibit where the KO count could be converted into an equivalent balanced KO count. I also showed in that exhibit the CC of the balance and unbalanced KO count were 100% so these counts are equal and I used EoR for hard 16 v T hit/stand and showed that the CC and SLOPE with EoR for the KO and KO.bal were all equal and also the SD of the KO and KO.bal were equal . So indices of OK and KO.bal are all equal. The problem is in actual use and inaccuracies in true count calculations due to errors in estimation of decks remaining. I have showed ad nauseum that the farther form the pivot the more sensitive the true count calculations are to errors in estimating of decks remaining. The indices of KO and KO.bal are he same. What is different is how accurate the true count can be calculated because of errors in estimating decks remaining.

In my very first book KO with Table of Critical running counts I showed a simple table for true count calculation of the unbalance KO count. I have shown the formula many times also in this post. The formula is tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr where n =- number of decks. So unbalance true counts can be easily calculated. I will attach an exhibit explaining this which I am sure I attached previously.

Ok, instead of just posting charts and calculations. You can maybe explain how to use the equivalent balanced KO count in real casino play. Using the equivalent balanced KO count in real casino play is not practical. How do you keep track of 12/13 as tag values without making mistakes. You have to stop posting charts and calculations if you don't have a way of applying it in real casino play. Since you are so smart. Please tell me how one can keep tag values of 12/13, -1/3 and -1 1/3 in real casino play. How??

[bjanalyst]

Ok, instead of just posting charts and calculations. You can maybe explain how to use the equivalent balanced KO count in real casino play. Using the equivalent balanced KO count in real casino play is not practical. How do you keep track of 12/13 as tag values without making mistakes. You have to stop posting charts and calculations if you don't have a way of applying it in real casino play. Since you are so smart. Please tell me how one can keep tag values of 12/13, -1/3 and -1 1/3 in real casino play. How??

I created a table of critical running counts form the formula tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr. You can buy the ebook PDF for $3.99 from Xlibris.com. I will list the Table of Critical Running Counts for six and eight decks below. I have posted them before but I will post the again for your ease of reference.

[seriousplayer]

I created a table of critical running counts form the formula tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n)/dr. You can buy the ebook PDF for $3.99 from Xlibris.com. I will list the Table of Critical Running Counts for six and eight decks below. I have posted them before but I will post the again for your ease of reference.

Still not answering my question. My question was how does one keep a count with tag values of 12/13, -1/3 and -1 1/3 in real casino play. I am asking you how. I am not asking you about the Table of Critical Running Count for KO and balanced KO. I don't think you understand English.

[bjanalyst]

Still not answering my question. My question was how does one keep a count with tag values of 12/13, -1/3 and -1 1/3 in real casino play. I am asking you how. I am not asking you about the Table of Critical Running Count for KO and balanced KO. I don't think you understand English.

Of course, you are never gong to count in fractions of 1/13th. Here is the Tale of Critical Running Counts for six and eight deck games that you need to use. It was calculated form tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n) /dr and the patterns in the table make it every easy to remember. For tc's outside the Table of crc use the simplified formulas I listed previously such as stand on hard 16 v 7 if tc(KO) = 4 and tc(5m7c) >= 2*dr. For negative true counts which is what you need in the play all game, I will discuss another time after I add the negative indices for simulation.
KO table of crc (1).jpg
KO table of crc (2).jpg

[seriousplayer]

Of course, you are never gong to count in fractions of 1/13th. Here is the Tale of Critical Running Counts for six and eight deck games that you need to use. It was calculated form tc(KO) = 4 + (KO - 4*n) /dr and the patterns in the table make it every easy to remember. For tc's outside the Table of crc use the simplified formulas I listed previously such as stand on hard 16 v 7 if tc(KO) = 4 and tc(5m7c) >= 2*dr. For negative true counts which is what you need in the play all game, I will discuss another time after I add the negative indices for simulation.

You are not answering my question. You are giving me critical running counts for KO. I am asking about balanced KO not KO. The tag values for KO and balanced KO is different because the KO count is being converted to equivalent balanced count. It is counting the 8s and 9s as -1/3 to make it balanced. You can't just true count KO without getting the running count tag values from balanced KO. You must count the tags in fractions for power.

[bjanalyst]

You are not answering my question. You are giving me critical running counts for KO. I am asking about balanced KO not KO. The tag values for KO and balanced KO is different because the KO count is being converted to equivalent balanced count. It is counting the 8s and 9s as -1/3 to make it balanced. You can't just true count KO without getting the running count tag values from balanced KO. You must count the tags in fractions for power.

The 8's and 9's are -(1/13) not -(1/3) in the balanced KO count. But the balanced KO count is equivalaent to the unblanaced KO count where the balanced KO count has integer tag values which humans can use. That the two counts are equivalent can be seen by CC(KO, KO.bal) = 100%.

No human would use the balanced KO count because you cannot count in fractional (1/13)th values. Also the balanced KO has a pivot of a true count of zero because it is balanced and so the advantages of true count accuracy at true counts around the KO pivot of a true count of 4 are lost with KO.bal. So when KO.bal > 0 or equivlaently when KO > 4*dp then there is a very slight excess of 8's and 9's left in the shoe because of the negative tag value of -(1/13)th for the 8's and 9's in the KO.bal count.

You had a question about calculation of the true count for the KO unbalanced count. If you look at the previous exhibits that I gave to you, you will that tc(KO.bal) = KO.bal / dr which you should have no problem with since KO.bal is a balanced count. Also KO.bal = KO - 4*dp also shown in a pervious exhibit. So tc(KO) = KO.bal / dr = (KO - 4*dp) / dr = (KO - 4*(n - dr) / dr = (KO + 4*dr - 4*n) / dr = 4 + (KO - 4*n) / dr where n = number of decks, dp = decks played and dr = decks remaining. That is how the unbalanced counts work.

[seriousplayer]

The 8's and 9's are -(1/13) not -(1/3) in the balanced KO count. But the balanced count is equivalaent to the unblanaced count with integer tag values as can be seen by CC(KO, KO.bal) = 100%. No human would use the balanced KO count because you cannot count in fractional (1/13)th values. Also the balaanced KO with have a pivot of a true count of zero and so the advantages of true count accuracy at true counts around the KO pivot of a true count of 4 are lost with KO.bal. So when KO.bal > 0 or equivlaently when KO > 4*dp then there is a very slight excess of 8's and 9's left in the shoe because of teh negative tag value of -(1/13)th for the 8's and 9's in the KO.bal count.

Than there is a flaw to your "Table of Critical Running Count". You can't figure out the values for KO.bal since no human would use the balanced KO count. This make your work junk. Do you have brain before posting such exhibit? There is a difference to balanced and unbalanced KO.

[bjanalyst]

Than there is a flaw to your "Table of Critical Running Count". You can't figure out the values for KO.bal since no human would use the balanced KO count. This make your work junk. Do you have brain before posting such exhibit? There is a difference to balanced and unbalanced KO.

The unbalanced KO count was used in simulations since that is the count that humans are actually using and that is the count that needs to be simulated.

There is no flaw. If my system was flawed then the simulations using the unbalanced KO count would not have shown that my system is superior to HO2 w ASC for back counting.

I will give you a few pages of proofs in a bit later as I have to leave right now.