HiLo + 7m9c Sim Results

[seriousplayer]

And the post you are referencing was when I said I used Aces Side Count with the HL to help with LL for the HL player and I attached PDFs with CC for that in a previous post. ASC = Ace Side Count, not 7m9c. So for the HL player I suggested HL w ASC for Lucky Ladies.

"The casino I play at offers Lucky Ladies and Super 4 and the ASC helps with both of those bets as you can see from the 2nd page of the two page PDF."

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

I also said that one of my friends who will never switch form the HL asked me to analyze using a ASC for the HL for the Super 4 bet and LL. I did. The HL w ASC helps with both the Super 4 and LL bets. I posted PDFs with this analysis previously..

It didn't matter the fact is that you didn't improve insurance. Your insurance correlation would be the same as Hi-Lo. Since you didn't improve at all as you mention in previous post. As it is indicated in your pdf files. You did a Lucky Ladies analysis but at what count do you bet the Lucky Ladies? With what amount. We are talking about Hi-lo + Am9c. What about analysis for your Super 4? Your counts are more theortical than practical. How do you implement Hi-lo + Am9c in Lucky Ladies. If that is the case it is not valid that you Hi-lo +Am9c would improve Lucky Ladies decision.

[bjanalyst]

It didn't matter the fact is that you didn't improve insurance. Your insurance correlation would be the same as Hi-Lo. Since you didn't improve at all as you mention in previous post. As it is indicated in your pdf files. You did a Lucky Ladies analysis but at what count do you bet the Lucky Ladies? With what amount. We are talking about Hi-lo + Am9c. What about analysis for your Super 4? Your counts are more theortical than practical. How do you implement Hi-lo + Am9c in Lucky Ladies. If that is the case it is not valid that you Hi-lo +Am9c would improve Lucky Ladies decision.

I have to answer this post since I have been misquoted. You did not read my posts and attachments carefully. I never mentioned Am9c, I said ASC. And I also showed when to bet insurance, LL and Super 4 in my PDFs and I showed in another PDF posted that HL with your side count of sevens, HL + k*(7def) is approximately the same as HL + k*(7m9c). I will attach one page from a PDF I already posted that shows HL w ASC which you did not read carefully before making your post.

Please, only post with new questions that I did not answer previously and read my posts carefully before posting a reply with something I never said.
HL w ASC.pdf

[seriousplayer]

I have to answer this post since I have been misquoted. You did not read my posts and attachments carefully. I never mentioned Am9c, I said ASC. And I also showed when to bet insurance, LL and Super 4 in my PDFs and I showed in another PDF posted that HL with your side count of sevens, HL + k*(7def) is approximately the same as HL + k*(7m9c). I will attach one page from a PDF I already posted that shows HL w ASC which you did not read carefully before making your post.

Please, only post with new questions that I did not answer previously and read my posts carefully before posting a reply with something I never said.
HL w ASC.pdf

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.

[bjanalyst]

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.

[seriousplayer]

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.

HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c are not equivalent in power because HL w 7SC improves the IC and have index deviations for insurance the HL w 7m9c. In addition, HL w 7SC improve the betting correlation (BC) which in my opinion beat your HL w 7m9c count. The HL w 7SC can help with Lucky Ladies because it boost the insurance correlation and devise a better insurance index.

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.

So the bottom line is that the HL w 7m9c doesn't help with Lucky Ladies. You even said it.

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.

Don't care

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.

How did you verify that EBJ2 / 2 captures around 70% of the HL w 7m9c gain over the HL when no simulation was done to compare EBJ2 / 2 with HL w 7m9c. You are just making stuff up.

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.

I thought you say that you would add any more components to your Hi-lo with 7m9c and now it not. You are suggesting adding the Am6c for Lucky Ladies. So the beginning statement from you was a lie.

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.

I heard this statement stated in six different ways. A different way of saying that HL w 7m9c would not improve insurance decision. Therefore, it would not help with the Lucky Ladies side bet.

[bjanalyst]

HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c are not equivalent in power because HL w 7SC improves the IC and have index deviations for insurance the HL w 7m9c. In addition, HL w 7SC improve the betting correlation (BC) which in my opinion beat your HL w 7m9c count. The HL w 7SC can help with Lucky Ladies because it boost the insurance correlation and devise a better insurance index.
.

I attached a PDF with CC of each of the important playing strategies for both HL w 7m9c and HL w 7SC which you obviously did not look at.

Yes IC of HL w 7SC is 78.4% of a 2.4% increase of HL IC of 76.0%

But BE for DAS, S17, LS of HL w 7m9s is 97.6% or 0.6% less than BE of HL w 7m9c which is 98.2%. HL has BE of 96.5% for DAS, LS, S17.

I will attach the one page PDF again comparing on an case by case basic CC of HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c.

When all CC are considered for all situations (some HL w 7m9c beats HL w 7SC and some HL w 7SC beats HL w 7m9c) the count system are approximately equal.

I personally like plus/minus side counts, not individual card side counts. plus/minus side counts are EXACT as they do not involved any estimate of decks played and the 7m9c fluctuations around its mean of zero and is not continually increase like keeping track of sevens played and comparison to decks played. So MY preference is plus/minus side counts and my analysis was HL w 7m9c. I did not analyze HL w 7SC except to do a side by side comparison of CC of each which I gave you before and which I will attach again since it is a one page PDF.

If you want help with insurance, LL, Super 4, or hit/stand on hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T then you need to keep Am6c or ASC with HL. Am6c helps more with hit/stand hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T than ASC does. ASC helps more with insurance and Super 4 and LL. If Super 4 or LL is offered, keep ASC. If no side bets both Am6 and ASC perform approximately the same. In the case of no side counts, I would there fore recommend Am6c because of my preference of simple plus/minus side counts over counts of individual ranks.
HL w 7m9c vs HL w 7def.pdf

[seriousplayer]

I attached a PDF with CC of each of the important playing strategies for both HL w 7m9c and HL w 7SC which you obviously did not look at.

Yes IC of HL w 7SC is 78.4% of a 2.4% increase of HL IC of 76.0%

The IC for Hi-lo with side count of sevens is higher than 78.4. I did look at you junky PDF file. It is theory after theory after theory. Where in the your PDF did you show at what count to take insurance, K Select? It is in decimals you think a normal human being count in decimals?

But BE for DAS, S17, LS of HL w 7m9s is 97.6% or 0.6% less than BE of HL w 7m9c which is 98.2%. HL has BE of 96.5% for DAS, LS, S17.

I will attach the one page PDF again comparing on an case by case basic CC of HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c.

The correct terms is BC Betting Correlation NOT BE. There is a difference as it is define in "The Theory of Blackjack".

When all CC are considered for all situations (some HL w 7m9c beats HL w 7SC and some HL w 7SC beats HL w 7m9c) the count system are approximately equal.

No it is not! We are talking about applying this in the casino, not theory. In practice you didn't include insurance and in the PDF you compared insurance. So you are comparing something you didn't apply.

I personally like plus/minus side counts, not individual card side counts. plus/minus side counts are EXACT as they do not involved any estimate of decks played and ......

Side counting individual card could be EXACT, also. It doesn't have to involve any deck estimate either.

If you want help with insurance, LL, Super 4, or hit/stand on hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T then you need to keep Am6c or ASC with HL. Am6c helps more with hit/stand hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T than ASC does. ASC helps more with insurance and Super 4 and LL. If Super 4 or LL is offered, keep ASC. If no side bets both Am6 and ASC perform approximately the same. In the case of no side counts, I would there fore recommend Am6c because of my preference of simple plus/minus side counts over counts of individual ranks.

See a different way to say you are adding more components to your count. I heard this six different ways.

HL w 7m9c CC to predict SCORE.pdf
HL w 7m9c & Am6c CC to predict SCORE.pdf

More theory!!! Again, how do you implement your HL w 7m9c and Am6c?

I am also attaching a PDF that show s how keeping the ASC with the HL helps with LL bets and Super 4 bets.
HL w ASC.pdf
HL w ASC for LL and Super 4.pdf

You would NOT get the same main count counting HL w ASC for HL w 7m9c. There is no way in the world you would come up with the same count counting HL w ASC for HL w 7m9c. They are two different counts even though, in your case their CC is the same, which comparing CC is unless.

[bjanalyst]

The IC for side count of Hi-lo with side count of sevens is higher than 78.4. I did look at you junky PDF file. It is theory after theory after theory. Where in the your PDF did you show at what count to take insurance, K Select? It is in decimals you think a normal human being count in decimals?

The correct terms is BC Betting Correlation NOT BE. There is a different as it is define in "The Theory of Blackjack".

More theory!!! Again, how do you implement your HL w 7m9c and Am6c?

You would NOT get the same main count counting HL w ASC for HL w 7m9c. .

I will attach a PDF that shows the details of insurance calculation of HL w 7SC. You will see k = 0.8 in HL + k*(7SC) which gives IC = 78.4% and infinite deck index = 3.326.

I did not show the indices for HL w 7SC because I was not analyzing HL w 7SC. I analyzed HL w 7m9c.

When comparing different systems, you just need to compare CC for each strategy change and CC for betting which is what I showed.

For betting there is only one strategy change and so Betting Correlation is equal to Betting Efficiency.

For playing strategy changes, there are many different CC for various playing situations. Griffin said CC are directly related to efficiency. So for playing strategy I just calculated an average CC for each system I am comparisons. And you can assign weights to each situation but use the same weights for all systems you are comparing.
Insurance w 7SC.pdf

[seriousplayer]

I will attach a PDF that shows the details of insurance calculation of HL w 7SC. You will see k = 0.8 in HL + k*(7SC) which gives IC = 78.4% and infinite deck index = 3.326.

I did not show the indices for HL w 7SC because I was not analyzing HL w 7SC. I analyzed HL w 7m9c.

Ok, you didn't show the insurance index for HL w 7m9c.

When comparing different systems, you just need to compare CC for each strategy change and CC for betting which is what I showed.

Citation needed. Where is it written that you compare CC for betting?

For betting there is only one strategy change and so Betting Correlation is equal to Betting Efficiency.

Betting Correlation and Betting Efficiency are not the same.

For playing strategy changes, there are many different CC for various playing situations. Griffin said CC are directly related to efficiency. So for playing strategy I just calculated an average CC for each system I am comparisons. And you can assign weights to each situation but use the same weights for all systems you are comparing.
Insurance w 7SC.pdf

Not for Hi-Lo with Side Count Seven. There is only one index deviation. I know because simulation and studies have already been done for Hi-Lo with Side Count Seven.

[bjanalyst]

Ok, you didn't show the insurance index for HL w 7m9c.

For all plays other than the top 6, HL w 7m9c is the HL. So the insurance index for HL w 7m9c is the HL insurance index.

Citation needed. Where is it written that you compare CC for betting?
Betting Correlation and Betting Efficiency are not the same.

See attached pages from TOB. Note that Griffin says "efficiency is directly related to and sometimes equal to correlation coefficient between the point value of the card counting system and the single card payoffs approximating the blackjack situation considered". When there is only one situation being considered separately, such as betting or insurance, the betting efficiency or insurance efficiency is the betting CC or insurance CC. If you are trying to make a grouping of various playing strategies and get a ingle efficiency for those playing start then there is no single CC to apply to these and efficiency is calculated by some other means that I am not sure of. I just used an average or a weighed average CC and according to Griffin efficiency is directly related to these CC.

Also every single simulation that Gronbog did with HL w AA78mTc and then HL w AA78mTc & 5m6c and KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c, and now HL w 7m9c when I added additional indices and situations based on CC, the SCORE increased every single time. And this included even some very marginal changes with soft double indices added to HL w AA78mTc where the SCORE had a very small increase, but it still increased!

So CC comparisons are a legitimate technique to measure the strength of various counts. And when all CC for all situations of HL w 7m9c and HL w 7SC are considered, they are overall approximately equal. I do not like single card side counts, I like plus/minus side counts since they are EXACT and easier, at least for me, to keep. Thus I analyzed HL w 7m9c.

Not for Hi-Lo with Side Count Seven. There is only one index deviation. I know because simulation and studies have already been done for Hi-Lo with Side Count Seven.

I did not list indices, just CC, which is all you need to compare strengths of various counts - compare CC for betting and for playing strategies.
Griffin on CC.pdf

[seriousplayer]

Ok, you didn't show the insurance index for HL w 7m9c.

For all plays other than the top 6, HL w 7m9c is the HL. So the insurance index for HL w 7m9c is the HL insurance index.

Citation needed. Where is it written that you compare CC for betting?
Betting Correlation and Betting Efficiency are not the same.

See attached pages from TOB. Note that Griffin says "efficiency is directly related to and sometimes equal to correlation coefficient between the point value of the card counting system and the single card payoffs approximating the blackjack situation considered". When there is only one situation being considered separately, such as betting or insurance, the betting efficiency or insurance efficiency is the betting CC or insurance CC. If you are trying to make a grouping of various playing strategies and get a ingle efficiency for those playing start then there is no single CC to apply to these and efficiency is calculated by some other means that I am not sure of. I just used an average or a weighed average CC and according to Griffin efficiency is directly related to these CC.

Please list the page number that you got that information from. When Griffin say "efficiency is directly related to and sometimes equal to correlation coefficient between the point value of the card counting system and the single card payoffs approximating the blackjack situation considered" he doesn't only mean "Betting Correlation". Betting Correlation as he said in the next section is just one example of efficiency. I think Griffin is defining "efficiency" for a card counting system to mean the measure of all three parameters BC, PE and IC determines the efficiency of the system. He didn't say explicitly that "Betting Efficiency" is the same as "Betting Correlation".

Also every single simulation that Gronbog did with HL w AA78mTc and then HL w AA78mTc & 5m6c and KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c, and now HL w 7m9c when I added additional indices and situations based on CC, the SCORE increased every single time. And this included even some very marginal changes with soft double indices added to HL w AA78mTc where the SCORE had a very small increase, but it still increased!

So CC comparisons are a legitimate technique to measure the strength of various counts. And when all CC for all situations of HL w 7m9c and HL w 7SC are considered, they are overall approximately equal. I do not like single card side counts, I like plus/minus side counts since they are EXACT and easier, at least for me, to keep. Thus I analyzed HL w 7m9c.

Not for Hi-Lo with Side Count Seven. There is only one index deviation. I know because simulation and studies have already been done for Hi-Lo with Side Count Seven.

I did not list indices, just CC, which is all you need to compare strengths of various counts - compare CC for betting and for playing strategies.
Griffin on CC.pdf

Also, we don't care about HL w AA78mTc & 5m6c and KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c I don't know why you keep bring that up. This thread is about Hi-lo + 7m9c. CC is might be a legitimate way to determine count strength but it is not the method used to calculate and determine SCORE.

If you didn't list any indices how does anyone know how to apply and implement your system?

[bjanalyst]

Please list the page number that you got that information from. When Griffin say "efficiency is directly related to and sometimes equal to correlation coefficient between the point value of the card counting system and the single card payoffs approximating the blackjack situation considered" he doesn't only mean "Betting Correlation". Betting Correlation as he said in the next section is just one example of efficiency. I think Griffin is defining "efficiency" for a card counting system to mean the measure of all three parameters BC, PE and IC determines the efficiency of the system. He didn't say explicitly that "Betting Efficiency" is the same as "Betting Correlation".

If you look closely at the PDF I sent to you, it lists the pages numbers right under the quote. The first is page 43 and the 2nd is pages 52 and 53. And I have seen many publication listing BE and IE and he values that they were was the BCC and ICC. If you are considering only one strategy change then the CC and Efficiency is the same. When you talk about PE you are grouping many strategy changes and so I am not sure how efficiency is calculated in those situations. What I did was take a (weighted) average CC. As Griffin said, CC are directly related to efficiency so as CC increases so does efficeincy.

Also, we don't care about HL w AA78mTc & 5m6c and KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c I don't know why you keep bring that up. This thread is about Hi-lo + 7m9c. CC is might be a legitimate way to determine count strength but it is not the method used to calculate and determine SCORE.

The reason I mentioned HL w AA78mTc & 6m6c and KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c sims is that the CC increased when I gave those to Gronbog to simulate and the results were that the SCORE increases. So larger CC means the SCORE increases as shown by every simluation I had Gronbog do for me.

If you didn't list any indices how does anyone know how to apply and implement your system?

I listed indices for HL w 7m9c in my posts. Remember, it is the HL w 7m9c for the top 6 plays and betting and HL for everythng else. I did not list HL w 7SC indices because I did not analyze HL w 7SC. I only wanted to compare CC of HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c to show that the two systems were approxmiatley equal in power. I do not recomemnt HL w 7SC and did not analyze HL w 7SC thus I did not prodcue any indices for HL w 7SC because I do not like side counts of individual cards, I like plus/minus side counts.

Top HL w 7m9c
brc = betting running count = HL + ½*(7m9c)
Stand hard 14 v T if HL + 3*(7m9c) >= 10*dr
Surrender 8,8 v T DAS if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 2*dr
Surrender hard 14 v 9 if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
Surrender hard 14 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 3*dr
Surrender hard 14 v A if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
Surrender hard 13 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 8*dr
All other situations use the stand along HL count and indices

Pretty simple for the HL player would wants to keep the HL count and indices with just a simple side count and a few strategy changes to increase HL efficiency.

[seriousplayer]

If you look closely at the PDF I sent to you, it lists the pages numbers right under the quote. The first is page 43 and the 2nd is pages 52 and 53. And I have seen many publication listing BE and IE and he values that they were was the BCC and ICC.

You mention many publication listing BE and IE. What are the names of those publications?

If you are considering only one strategy change then the CC and Efficiency is the same. When you talk about PE you are grouping many strategy changes and so I am not sure how efficiency is calculated in those situations. What I did was take a (weighted) average CC. As Griffin said, CC are directly related to efficiency so as CC increases so does efficeincy.

Griffin said, in some case efficiency is directly related to correlation between the point values of the card counting system and the single card payoff approximating the blackjack situation considered. He didn't say it is alway the case in page 43 paragraph 1 fifth edition of The Theory of Blackjack. Efficiency is the ratio of the actual profit in card counting system to the total potential gain from information and interpretation of the unplayed cards. Betting correlation tells you how closely your card counting system estimates the advantage in betting.

The reason I mentioned HL w AA78mTc & 6m6c and KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c sims is that the CC increased when I gave those to Gronbog to simulate and the results were that the SCORE increases. So larger CC means the SCORE increases as shown by every simluation I had Gronbog do for me.

Griffin said that ? = correlation coefficient it didn't say when ? increases so does the SCORE. I looked at page 52-53 and it doesn't say anything about SCORE. You are making that up. In what paragraph does Griffin say as ? increase so does SCORE? The correlation coefficient is the point value of the card counting system and the payoff of the game itself. I shows how to calculate correlation coefficient but never mention that as the correlation coefficient increase it would increase SCORE.

Firstly, you are looking at the 5th edition of The Theory of Blackjack which was published on 1996. The term SCORE was created by Don Schlesinger in 1999. So there is no way Griffin would mention anything about SCORE. Secondly, correlation coefficient doesn't compare risk and expectation which SCORE was made to evaluate. Your analysis doesn't even take into account the number of decks, penetration and bet spread. All I see was S17, DAS, LS. Okay, S17, DAS, LS for how many decks?

If you didn't list any indices how does anyone know how to apply and implement your system?

I listed indices for HL w 7m9c in my posts. Remember, it is the HL w 7m9c for the top 6 plays and betting and HL for everythng else. I did not list HL w 7SC indices because I did not analyze HL w 7SC. I only wanted to compare CC of HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c to show that the two systems were approxmiatley equal in power. I do not recomemnt HL w 7SC and did not analyze HL w 7SC thus I did not prodcue any indices for HL w 7SC because I do not like side counts of individual cards, I like plus/minus side counts.

Top HL w 7m9c
brc = betting running count = HL + ½*(7m9c)
Stand hard 14 v T if HL + 3*(7m9c) >= 10*dr
Surrender 8,8 v T DAS if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 2*dr
Surrender hard 14 v 9 if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
Surrender hard 14 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 3*dr
Surrender hard 14 v A if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 6*dr
Surrender hard 13 v T if HL + 2*(7m9c) >= 8*dr
All other situations use the stand along HL count and indices

Pretty simple for the HL player would wants to keep the HL count and indices with just a simple side count and a few strategy changes to increase HL efficiency.

It better comparing the HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c using simulation rather than doing CC calculations.