Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[Gronbog]

With time running our before I go away for a few weeks, I only had time to run one sim for bjanalyst's KO system. I decided it would be best to run a sim of the system using all of his indices and also using his side count for betting. The rationale being that if it didn't beat HiOpt II + ASC, then the incremental sims would not be important and if it did, then this would be the sim that would show it. The sim is designated as KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b in the results below.

• As was done for the HiLo system, the sim is for 5/6 S17 DAS DOA SPL3 noLS. That way I could add the result to the previous table for comparison with the results for the other systems.
• bjanalyst posted his indices earlier in the thread. This sim used all of the indices except for surrender, since this game does not have surrender.
• bjanalyst let me know that these indices are intended to be RA indices. I don't know how much of a difference RA indices typically make for SCORE but this needed to be made clear since the indices for the other sims were EV maximizing.
• This sim also used his 5m7c count as a side count for betting. The betting count was KO + (1/2)x(5m7c).

Executive Summary

KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b does in fact have a higher SCORE than HiOpt II + ASC for the back-counting scenarios. It does not beat HiOpt II + ASC for the play-all scenarios, but comes closer than the HiLo system did.

Here are the updated results. I now return you to your regularly scheduled counting system debate.

Scenario        System                  Source         SCORE     Improvement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play-All 1-8
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        24.30
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        27.18        11.85%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        27.89        2.61%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        28.35        1.65%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        29.53        4.16%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        30.37        2.84%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        32.94        8.46%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        34.49        4.71%

Play-All 1-10
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        29.27
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        32.33        10.45%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        33.07        2.29%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        33.54        1.42%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        34.83        3.85%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        35.78        2.73%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        38.89        8.69%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        40.03        2.93%
  
Play-All 1-12
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        33.04
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        36.21        9.59%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        36.95        2.04%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        37.44        1.33%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        38.80        3.63%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        39.84        2.68%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        43.35        8.81%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        44.19       10.92%

Back-Count 1-1
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        46.86
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        49.64        5.93%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        50.03        0.79%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        50.43        0.80%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        51.67        2.46%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        52.95        2.48%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        55.70        5.19%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        57.89        3.93%

Back-Count 1-2
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        55.56
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        58.86        5.94%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        59.45        1.00%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        60.06        1.03%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        61.44        2.30%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        63.09        2.69%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        66.77        5.83%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        68.45        2.52%

Back-Count 1-4
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        61.24
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        64.49        5.31%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        65.01        0.81%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        65.60        0.91%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        66.98        2.10%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        68.46        2.21%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        72.31        5.62%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        74.88        3.55%

Back-Count 1-8
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        62.91
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        65.96        4.85%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        66.43        0.71%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        67.00        0.86%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        68.32        1.97%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        70.08        2.58%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        74.35        6.09%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        76.60        3.03%

Back-Count 1-12
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        63.23
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        66.48        5.14%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        67.05        0.86%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        67.68        0.94%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        69.11        2.11%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        70.92        2.62%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        75.05        5.82%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        77.37        3.09%

Unrestricted
                HiLo 1994               Gronbog        63.87
                HiLo+AA78mTc 6          Gronbog        67.01        4.92%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 12         Gronbog        67.55        0.81%
                HiLo+AA78mTc 26         Gronbog        68.16        0.90%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c       Gronbog        69.54        2.02%
                HiLo+AA78mTc+5m6c+b     Gronbog        71.27        2.49%
                HiOpt II + ASC          Gronbog        75.22        5.54%
                KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b       Gronbog        77.95        3.63%

[seriousplayer]

KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b does in fact have a higher SCORE than HiOpt II + ASC for the back-counting scenarios. It does not beat HiOpt II + ASC for the play-all scenarios, but comes closer than the HiLo system did.

I wonder why the KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b have a higher SCORE than Hi-OPT II + ASC for back-counting scenarios only?

[bjanalyst]

I wonder why the KO+5m7c+AA89mTc+b have a higher SCORE than Hi-OPT II + ASC for back-counting scenarios only?

Here is my idea of why KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c did not beat HO2 w ASC for the play all game. My KO system has a pivot of a true count of 4. That is becaues I chose KO as the base count for the shoe game because the shoe game should be played by back counting or at least not playing with negative counts.

With a pivot of a true count of 4, the KO system has very accurate true counts near its pivot which is where large bets are made. So if you are playing only in positive true counts (or KO > crc(0) = 4*dp) then you will be playing near KO pivot and everything is fine. The farther from the pivot the worse the accuracy of the true count approximation based on an estaimate of decks remaining.

The problem with the play all system is that you are playing in negative true counts and the KO with a pivot of a true count of 4 is very sensitive to errors in estimating decks played at negative true counts. But the HO2 has a pivot of a true count of zero and so negiave true counts are closer to the pivot of a true count of zero.

So the KO count does very bad in true count accuracy for negative true counts as compared to the balance HO2. I will include an exhibit showing this which where I actually calculated the true count range for true count -2 to +10 for the HL and KO assuming decks estimated to the nearest full deck as Gronbog did in his simulations. You will see that for true counts > 3 that the KO system is around (1/2) as sensitive to errors in estimating decks remaining as the HL is. At true count of 2 both the HL and KO are two true count points away form their respective pivots of a true count of 4 and 0 and so are equally sensitive to errors in estimating decks played. But at true counts less than 2 the KO system accuracy deteriorates and the HL system gives more accurate true counts.

So part of the reason the KO system does not fair well against the HO2 balance system at negative true counts because the KO true count calculations are much more sensitive to errors in estimating decks remaining at negative true counts that the HO2 is.

The other reason I can think of as to why the HO2 beat the KO system in the play all is that I only gave a few negative indices for my KO system wherein the HO2 had it full range of negative indices as all HO2 w ASC indices were used.

Finally I would like to comment on RA indices that I used. These were judgmental on my part based on CC and AACpTCp for each situation and they are for doubles and splits. Doubling and splitting involved more risk and putting more money on the table. At the index, the EV of doubling or splitting and basic strategy and basic strategy are the same. So there is no EV gain in doubling or splitting at the index but there is added risk in doubling or splitting at the index. Thus I wait until true count is at least one true count point higher than the index to double or split. Now here is where I made my judgmental decision. if both CC and AACpTCp are large then one true count point is enough. If either CC is small or AACpTCp is small then I increase index more than one true count point.

If you recall pa(t) = AACpTCp*(t - Idx) where pa(t) = players advantage at pstc (playing strategy true count) = t and AACpTCp = Average Advantage Change per True Count point and Idx = index. Now if CC is large then pa(t) predicted from above formula is very accurate. if CC is small the pa(t) is not very accurate and so index should be increased more. So you should increased the true count above the EV index say by two true count points if CC is small. If AACpTCp is small then that is probably because SD of the psrc is large because of large values of k1 and k2. Thus you should increased the index by more than one true count point if AACpTCp is small.

Again these RA indices I chose were judgmental decisions based on a visual examination of AACpTCp and CC.

I hope this answers your questions.
HL vs KO tc errors.jpg

[seriousplayer]

Here is my idea of why KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c did not beat HO2 w ASC for the play all game. My KO system has a pivot of a true count of 4. That is becaues I chose KO as the base count for the shoe game because the shoe game should be played by back counting or at least not playing with negative counts.

With a pivot of a true count of 4, the KO system has very accurate true counts near its pivot which is where large bets are made. So if you are playing only in positive true counts (or KO > crc(0) = 4*dp) then you will be playing near KO pivot and everything is fine. The farther from the pivot the worse the accuracy of the true count approximation based on an estaimate of decks remaining.

The problem with the play all system is that you are playing in negative true counts and the KO with a pivot of a true count of 4 is very sensitive to errors in estimating decks played at negative true counts. But the HO2 has a pivot of a true count of zero and so negiave true counts are closer to the pivot of a true count of zero.

So the KO count does very bad in true count accuracy for negative true counts as compared to the balance HO2. I will include an exhibit showing this which where I actually calculated the true count range for true count -2 to +10 for the HL and KO assuming decks estimated to the nearest full deck as Gronbog did in his simulations. You will see that for true counts > 3 that the KO system is around (1/2) as sensitive to errors in estimating decks remaining as the HL is. At true count of 2 both the HL and KO are two true count points away form their respective pivots of a true count of 4 and 0 and so are equally sensitive to errors in estimating decks played. But at true counts less than 2 the KO system accuracy deteriorates and the HL system gives more accurate true counts.

So part of the reason the KO system does not fair well against the HO2 balance system at negative true counts because the KO true count calculations are much more sensitive to errors in estimating decks remaining at negative true counts that the HO2 is.

The other reason I can think of as to why the HO2 beat the KO system in the play all is that I only gave a few negative indices for my KO system wherein the HO2 had it full range of negative indices as all HO2 w ASC indices were used.

Finally I would like to comment on RA indices that I used. These were judgmental on my part based on CC and AACpTCp for each situation and they are for doubles and splits. Doubling and splitting involved more risk and putting more money on the table. At the index, the EV of doubling or splitting and basic strategy and basic strategy are the same. So there is no EV gain in doubling or splitting at the index but there is added risk in doubling or splitting at the index. Thus I wait until true count is at least one true count point higher than the index to double or split. Now here is where I made my judgmental decision. if both CC and AACpTCp are large then one true count point is enough. If either CC is small or AACpTCp is small then I increase index more than one true count point.

If you recall pa(t) = AACpTCp*(t - Idx) where pa(t) = players advantage at pstc (playing strategy true count) = t and AACpTCp = Average Advantage Change per True Count point and Idx = index. Now if CC is large then pa(t) predicted from above formula is very accurate. if CC is small the pa(t) is not very accurate and so index should be increased more. So you should increased the true count above the EV index say by two true count points if CC is small. If AACpTCp is small then that is probably because SD of the psrc is large because of large values of k1 and k2. Thus you should increased the index by more than one true count point if AACpTCp is small.

Again these RA indices I chose were judgmental decisions based on a visual examination of AACpTCp and CC.

I hope this answers your questions.

I thought from several posts ago you promise to give up the claim that your system outperforms HI-OPT II ASC when the simulations show that it didn't. Stop saying that your system outperforms Hi-OPT II ASC when it doesn't.

[bjanalyst]

I thought from several posts ago you promise to give up the claim that your system outperforms HI-OPT II ASC when the simulations show that it didn't. Stop saying that your system outperforms Hi-OPT II ASC when it doesn't.

Simulations show that for back counting (which is how you should be playing the shoe game anyhow) that my system does outperform the HO2 w ASC. If you are playing with negative counts than you have a bigger problem than trying to find the best system.

Also when LS is simulated you will see even a bigger difference with my KO system pulling even farther ahead than the HO2 w ASC.

And you also totally ignored the other 4 points I must mentioned in choosing a count system. The HO2 system is very difficul to keep and is subject to extreme errors in true count calculations from errors in estimating decks played. So whatever theoretical advantage that the sims show for the HO2 w ASC you lose when put into practical play.

With the KO the true counts are extremely accurate around the true count pivot for a true count of 4 which is where you want accuracy and the XmYc side count is EXACT.

So stop just dwelling on power as reflected by the sims. Consider all five points in choosing a count system. And anyhow, my KO system does outperform the HO2 w ASC unless you are stupid enough to play in all negative counts.

[seriousplayer]

So stop just dwelling on power as reflected by the sims. Consider all five points in choosing a count system. And anyhow, my KO system does outperform the HO2 w ASC unless you are stupid enough to play in all negative counts.

Point number 4 is not valid for you system because if you are backcounting the casino will know that you are a counter. Then the casino will ask: "Hi, what are you doing?" Card counting? Defeat the purpose of camouflage. Secondly, in terms of backcounting how are you going to attack the side bets, you just going to table hop and then wongin on the side bets??

[bjanalyst]

Point number 4 is not valid for you system because if you are backcounting the casino will know that you are a counter. Then the casino will ask: "Hi, what are you doing?" Card counting? Defeat the purpose of camouflage. Secondly, in terms of backcounting how are you going to attack the side bets, you just going to table hop and then wongin on the side bets??

You know my style of play. I look for $15 tables ($25 is too much for my $1,000 day trip bankroll) and back count with Carla. We play 6 decks game 5 decks dealt and when either KO >= 24 or LLc = KO + AA89mTc >= 24 we come in and play. So when we come in and play we play two, three or four $15 blackjack hands (if spots are available) and the LL bet at $5 if 24 < LLc < 30 and we start increaing LL bet from $10 up to $25 on as any hands as possible if LLc >= 30 and if we are winning. Our day trip backroll is $1,000 for 4 or 5 hours of play which is much less actual play because we are back counting. So the casino does not bother us because of our small bets but LL bet has a huge edge so we still do good and a couple of times a year we hit QHQH for 200 to 1 payout.

I realize you cannot do what I do if you have to play big money. But you do not have to play EVERY hand either. If the shoe goes really bad you go the the bathroom.

But I do not have experience with betting big and casino heat. But if you do find an excuse to leave on some really bad counts then your play all will be play most instead and my KO system may equal the HO2 with ASC for play most since it is close for the play all system.

Then you also have the camofalgue plays that I mentioned with insurance, hitting hard 12 v 6 and standing on hard 15 v 7, 8, 9 or h16 v 7, 8, 9 when tc(KO) >= 4 and tc(5m7c) >= 4, 3, 2, 2, 1.5, 1 respectively which you do not have with the HO2 w ASC.

And another interesting camouflage play would be standing on hard 14 v T when psrc = KO - 1.5*(5m7c) >= crc(7). The HL index for this is 10 I believe. But the SD(psrc) is much greater than SD(HL) and the CC(psrc) for this play is much larger than the CC(HL) for this play. So psrc = crc(7) occurs as often as tc(HL) = 5 approximately. So it is not that unusual for psrc = crc(7) and don't forget 5m7c is independent of KO, i.e CC(5m7c,KO) = 0 so 5m7c can have all kinds of values independent of KO so psrc can easily be crc(7) and you stand. So if tc(KO) = 4 for example and tc(5m7c) = -2 then KO - 1.5*(5m7c) >= crc(7) or tc(KO + 1.5*5m7c) = 4 - 1.5*(-2) = 7 and so you would stand. So you are standing with a tc(KO) = 4 against a Ten. The pit using the HL will have a tc(HL) = 4 and see you have a big bet out and standing on hard 14 v T which they know the index is 10 and not 4 and think you are an idiot.

Now I want to point out that all of my formulas make logical sense so they are not difficult to remember. Let's consider standing on hard 14 v T if psrc = KO - 1.5*(5m7c) >= crc(7). If 5m7c < 0 then more 7's then 5's came out of the shoe. So as 5m7c decreases and becomes more and more negative then there is a deficiency of 7's and excess of 5's left in the shoe. The deficiency of 7's should make you want to stand on hard 14 v T since it is less likely you will pick up a 7 for a 21 to beat the dealer's probable 20 if there is a deficiency of 7's. So logic tells you the more negative 5m7c is the more you want to stand on hard 14 v T. Now let's see if this agrees with the formula psrc = KO - 1.5*(5m7c) >= crc(7). if 5m7c decreases, then psrc increases and eventually psrc exceeds crc(7) and you stand. So logic agrees with the formula as it should. This makes "memorizing" the chart of changes a lot easier.

Anyhow, wait for the LS simulations and you will see even a bigger difference between KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c and HO2 with ASC.

[seriousplayer]

I realize you cannot do what I do if you have to play big money. But you do not have to play EVERY hand either. If the shoe goes really bad you go the the bathroom.

But I do not have experience with betting big and casino heat. But if you do find an excuse to leave on some really bad counts then your play all will be play most instead and my KO system may equal the HO2 with ASC for play most since it is close for the play all system.

Oh so, you are going to bet small the rest of your life? If it comes time to bet big especially in high limit tables where there is no mid-shoe entry than you would be force to play all. In that case your system would not outperform Hi-OPT II ASC.

[bjanalyst]

Oh so, you are going to bet small the rest of your life? If it comes time to bet big especially in high limit tables where there is no mid-shoe entry than you would be force to play all. In that case your system would not outperform Hi-OPT II ASC.

(1) if you pay the LS game then my prediction is the my KO system will outperfrom the HO2 w ASC by an even greater degree and most likely will beat HO2 w ASC even in teh play all situations. So be selective and play the LS game.

(2) The amount my KO system underformed the HO2 for the play all game was meniscal. Any theoretical underperformance in power would be made up in the other 4 items that I mentioned in the five criteria I used to rate a system.

(3) I was asked the reason why I believe my KO system underperformed the HO2 w ASC for the play all game. I stated two reasons.

(a) First my KO has a pivot of a true count of 4 which is great for accuracy when you have positive true counts and making a large bet. But what you gain on the positive true counts you lose on negative true counts. When you are in a play all situation and playing with negative true counts, the accuracy of my KO system true count is much less than the accuracy of the balanced HO2 true count. Your minimum bet is out but still the reduced accuracy of the negative true count for the KO system as compared to the HO2 system did take a toll on SCORE in play all game I believe. There is not much I could do about that and I would not change to a balance count for negative true count accuracy where you minimum bet is out or when back counting, is not even played at all.

(b) Perhaps more important that the decrease in accuracy at negative true count of the KO system is the fact that I gave very, very few negative indices for my KO system. I had listed all of the indices that I gave. The largest negative index that I gave to Gronborg was -2.5 for standing on hard 13 v 3 when KO + (1/2)*(AA89mTc) >= crc(-2.5). If that one play is ignored then there were just a three or four induces at -1 and all other indices that I gave to Gronbog were non-negative indices. So what I need to ask Gronbog is what did he do with indices that I did not give to him. Did you just use basic strategy on those negative plays? I could calculate negative indices for KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c but I never did because I only back count and so to me they were not important. However considering some players do play all game then it would be important to have these negative indices for these players. When Gronbog comes back I will ask him what he did with plays for indices that I did not give to him. If he just used basic strategy then that would explain why my KO system underperformed the HO2 with ASC for the play all situation,. But even with basically no strategy change for negative indices, my KO system almost tied the HO2 w ASC for the no LS play all game. If I had negative indcies you will see a change. I can easily calculate negative indices and values of k1 and k2 my KO system and give them to Gronbog to add to his simulation. Then you will probably see that my KO system will outperform the HO2 w ASC even in the play all stiautoin when I give Gronbog negative indices.

So basically my KO system was at a disadvantage to the HO2 w ASC for the play al game since the HO2 w ASC had it full set of positive and negative indices and my KO system had very, very few negative indices.

I will attach to this post (as I attached before also) the six simulations that list indices and values of k1 and k2 that I gave to Gronbog that he put into his simulation. He did all six indices but you will see very few negative indices.

So when Gronbog come back I will ask if he can add some negative indices as sim 7 and then redo the sim with these negative indices as well. My prediction is that my KO system, once these negative indices are added, will outperform the HO2 w ASC even in the play all game.

And if you look at the indices I gave to Gronbog, I left out some of the positive indices for doubles and splits that were high, such as doubling hard 8 v 4. I had only included hard 8 v 5 and hard 8 v 6 doubles. If I included some of these more rare doubles and splits, which I am sure were included in the HO2 w ASC since they used the full set of indices, then the SCORE even for the back counted game would probably increase even more over the HO2 w ASC.

And when LS is added, you will see a big jump in my KO system outperforming the HO2 w ASC.

So let me calculate and add negative indices and values of k1 and k2 for my KO system and give them to Gronbog to add to his simulation and then we will see how my KO system does for the play all game.

So here are the indices and values of k1 and k2 that Gronbog put into his simulation. You will see that almost all indices are non-negative. So I will need to add some negative indices, say KO negative indices to -5 or so for the play all game which I believe will then make a difference in the play all game sims.
KO AA89mTc 5m7c sims (1).jpg
KO AA89mTc 5m7c sims (2).jpg

[seriousplayer]

(1) if you pay the LS game then my prediction is the my KO system will outperfrom the HO2 w ASC by an even greater degree and most likely will beat HO2 w ASC even in teh play all situations. So be selective and play the LS game.

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.

[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.