Originally Posted by
seriousplayer
The count we are talking about in this post is Hi-lo+ 7m9c not Hi-lo + Ace. The simulation was done for Hi-lo + 7m9c not for Hi-lo + Ace. You didn't answer the question about Hi-lo + 7m9c count regarding Lucky Ladies because you keep mentioning the Hi-lo + Ace which was not talked about this is thread. Here in this thread we are talking about Hi-lo + 7m9c only and not any other count. So don't start adding and subtracting things. My question to you is how does Hi-lo + 7m9c count improve the decision for the Lucky Ladies side bet since your IC for Hi-lo + 7m9c count is the same as regular Hi-lo and you don't have index deviation for insurance? Answer that question and stop talking about Hi-lo+ A.
True, this post was about the HL w 7m9c.
But somewhere along the line other issues popped up which were independent of the 7m9c and probably should have been included in another post but since the issues came up here I answered them.
I think that began with you saying a seven side count would be great and then other non-related issues came up. So I ran my CC for HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c and basically they are approximately equivalent in power. I personally like plus/minus side counts because they are EXACT and for me much easier to keep. But if you prefer a seven side count then that is fine also. But you will then need indices for HL w 7SC which I could, but did not, generate because my post was about HL w 7m9c not HL w 7SC. I just posted the CC for HL w 7m9c and HL w 7SC for comparison of strength.
I said from the very beginning of my first thread on HL w 7m9c that HL w 7m9c helps with betting and late surrender. I never said it helped with insurance or Lucky Ladies or anything else. I said if you wanted help with insurance then consider Am6c or ASC. I showed that both HL w Am6c and HL w ASC are approximately the same strength if no side bets - ASC helps more with the insurance bet than Am6c does and Am6c helps more with hit./standing on hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T than ASC does. But if LL or Super 4 are offered, better to use ASC as they help more with these side bets than Am6c does.
And remember, the HL w 7m9c top 6 says use the 7m9c with the HL for betting, the top six decisions (standing on hard 14 v T, surrendering h14 v 9, T, A , h 13 v T and 8,8 v T DAS) and use the stand alone HL for every other decision. So with just six strategy changes and an adjustment for betting you gain for back counting scenarios over 50% of the HO2 w ASC gain over HL.
I devised this HL w 7m9c as an option for the HL players who wants to keep the HL and wanted a simple improvement. To help will insurance and standing on hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T then use Am6c or ASC with the HL.
Another reader posted the EJB2 / 2 which is the HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) being used for betting and all strategy changes. But it is a level 2 count and I made my system for HL players who want to keep the level one HL.
I showed that the EBJ2 / 2 captures around 70% of the HL w 7m9c gain over the HL. So is easier to keep a level 2 count and no side count or two level one counts? That is a personal decision but from the players I meet, they are all HL players and would never switch to another count and especially a level two count. It was for these players that I came up with the HL w 7m9c.
If additional improvement is desired then another side count, such as Am6c, needs to be added. So you have HL w 7m9c & Am6c, the level one HL with two level one side counts.
I just gave a cursory explanation of HL w Am6c or HL w ASC in the threads in this post because this post is mainly about HL w 7m9c.
If there is interest in HL w Am6c or HL w 7m9c and Am6c then another post would be needed and readers of this post would have to express interest in this analysis. If not, I will just leave it at HL w 7m9c.
For the EBJ2 / 2 player mentioned above, he would have level 2 EBJ2 / 2 w Am6c since he is using a level 2 primary count and one level one side count.
So you ask for the HL w 7m9c index for insurance. Well insurance is not one of the top 6 plays so you use the stand alone HL count for insurance which index is 3.
PS: One small typo in the PDF I attached with HL w ASC. The chart shows doubling hard 10 v T for HL + k*(Adef) with k = (-1) and expected value index = 3.9 which is correct, so using 4 for expected value index, double hard 10 v T if HL + (-1)*(Adef) >= 4*dr or double if HL + Aexc >= 4*dr.
I had a typo in my PDF with HL w ASC where I wrote double hard 10 v A if HL + Aexc >= 4*dr. It should be expected value double hard h 10 v T if HL + Aexc >= 4*dr to agree with the chart above.
Bookmarks