Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[bjanalyst]

TRUE COUNT DISTRIBUTIONS ARE LEPTOKURTIC

Attached is the tc(KO) true count distribution from my first book, KO with Table of Critical Running Count. I did these simple simulations in Excel using Excel's random function and some tricks. This was a simple simulation to do. I cannot do complex simulations. I will leave complex simulation for Gronbog.

I am busy right now so not sure when I can get this done but this is something I will definitely do.

So I will be using this distributions along with SD(KO), SD(AA89mTc), SD(5m7c) and the frequency of various playing situation from BJA3 to estimate how often camouflage plays are made when tc(KO) = 4.
tcI(KO) distribution.jpg

[Three]

The main way APs are identified is by bet spread.

The trouble mot APs have isn't their spread per se, it is the high frequency they show their minimum bet , and when they show it. If you want to last don't play through to so crap and don't bet minimum at every disadvantage. this makes your bets spread look smaller and makes you not need as big a bet spread.

[bjanalyst]

Bjanalyst, I can’t speak for Vegas, but in my next of the woods in the south most pit bosses don’t know basic strategy so they wouldn’t know a deviation play if they saw one.

The main way APs are identified is by bet spread. I’ve been kicked out a couple times and each time it was due to bet spread. The only time playing strategy will get you in trouble here is if you split 10s with max bet or double soft 19 and 20 with max bet. Insurancing only with your max bet out there might get you a couple looks too.

Standing on 14 vs 10 with max bet won’t give you any cover. And what you do with your min bet also won’t give you any cover since the pit bosses are only paying attention to your play with your bigger bets. The bottom line is learning some new side counts for camouflage won’t help down here. I would only do it if it helped me win more money.

On a scale of 1 to 10, bet spread is a 10 and playing strategy is a 1 in terms of how a casino identifies a counter, at least in my parts.

Thanks for your insight from the real work of casinos surveillance. Bet spreads are of course the biggest factor that casinos look for. That is because it doesn't take much brains to see if someone is betting big and the correlate to the HL true count.

So I understand that casinos look mainly at bet spreads when you have your large bet out (which is what I said -- casinos look at you when you have your large bet out - not small bets). So that point is very well taken. Thanks.

Maybe though if you made some strange plays like standing on hard 15 v 7, 8, or 9 or hard 16 v 7 or 8 the casino might take notice. These plays can be made when tc(KO) = 4 and tc(5m7c) >= 4, 3, 2, 2, 1.5 for hard 15 v 7, 8, 9 and hard 16 v 7, 8 respectively.

If the casino sees a large bet out and you standing on hard 16 v 7 or hard 15 v 9 (these plays only require tc(5m7c) > 2 when tc(KO) = 4 and even a lower tc(5m7c) when tc(KO) > 4) then maybe that would draw their attention - that would surely look like a mistake to the casino I would think. But these plays are the right plays when tc(5m7c) is large enough and so should be made anyhow even if not for camouflage.

Another camouflage play that the casinos may notice is hitting hard 12 v 6 when tc(KO) is very large. Now you are breaking even basic strategy and breaking it when you have a large count and large bet out also when you should really be standing on hard 12 v 6. But as I have shown, you should hit hard 12 v 6 if tc(KO + 1.5*(AA89mTc)) < (-1) which using my formula simplification I gave in a previous post is (S17 game) to hit hard 12 v 6 if AA89mTc < (2/3)*(-1 - t)*dr where t = tc(KO). So if tc(KO) = 4 and your large bet is out, then you would hit hard 12 v 6 if AA89mTc < (2/3)*(-1 - 4)*dr = (-10/3)*dr = (-3.3)*dr, so if AA89mTc < (-3)*dr and tc(KO) = 4 you would hit hard 12 v 6. I think that might be considered a strange play that might buy you extra time also.

As you mentioned, play that the casinos do look out for is insurance and splitting 10's with large bets out. Can't help with cover for splitting 10's but can help with insurance. Insure when tc(KO + AA89mTc) >= 4. So if tc(KO) = 4 and if tc(AA89mTc) < 0 then do NOT insure. So you can have instances with tc(KO) = 6 for example and if tc(AA89mTc) < (-2) then you would NOT insure. So the casino would see you with a big bet out and you would NOT be taking insurance. They may notice that as a mistake and that might buy you some extra time or take off some heat.

At any rate, I just mentioned camouflage as a possible side benefit of keeping these side counts. The main benefit is to increase your win rate. But if you get some camouflage for free which will let you play a bit longer then why not take it?

[Dbs6582]

The trouble mot APs have isn't their spread per se, it is the high frequency they show their minimum bet , and when they show it. If you want to last don't play through to so crap and don't bet minimum at every disadvantage. this makes your bets spread look smaller and makes you not need as big a bet spread.

Point taken. I agree with your comments and that’s what I do. It’s been a while since I’ve been kicked out of a casino. I also use some of the bet camouflage Stealth has mentioned on this site and it’s been working for me.

My main point is playing camouflage (other than the obvious cover plays...don’t split tens) will get me next to nothing in my neck of the words. It’s betting strategy (camouflage) that helps with longevity.

[bjanalyst]

Point taken. I agree with your comments and that’s what I do. It’s been a while since I’ve been kicked out of a casino. I also use some of the bet camouflage Stealth has mentioned on this site and it’s been working for me.

My main point is playing camouflage (other than the obvious cover plays...don’t split tens) will get me next to nothing in my neck of the words. It’s betting strategy (camouflage) that helps with longevity.

So I believe you are saying for cover you may have to play more than the absolute minimum at true counts of 1, 0 or even -1 so as to mask your bet spread.

If you are then betting more than you would really want to bet at these tc < 1 and so the casino has the edge then you should really be interested in making the best playing strategy deviations to reduce that casino edge as much as possible on these plays. And you should then want to concentrate on making the correct playing strategy deviations that have indices close to zero when you are betting more than the minimum for betting camouflage.

Important playing strategy deviations for these plays when tc = 0 or 1 for example when you are betting more than you would really want to bet would be hit/stand hard 12 v 3, 4, 5, 6 decisions. The tc(KO) indices for these plays are 2, 0, -2, -1 but the tc(KO) has a CC for these plays of only around 65% or so. If you use psrc = playing strategy running count = KO + AA89mTc for these plays you raise the CC from 65% to over 90%. So increasing the CC of these plays where larger than minimum bets are being made for betting cover then adding AA89mTc to KO helps reduce your disadvantage on these plays that you are betting more than you really wanted to for cover.

Also Gronbog's simulations showed that the majority of the gain from AA78mTc with HL (analogous AA89mTc with KO) was for insurance and hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. So besides hard 12 v 3, 4, 5, 6 where indices are low you also have insurance and hard 12 v 2 where the index is 4. But the strategy change for these plays is to insure or stand on hard 12 v 2 when tc(KO + AA89mTc) >= 4. So you could be betting a medium bet with a true count of even zero for cover and still stand on hard 12 v 2 or take insurance if tc(AA89mTc) > 4.

So when playing for betting cover by playing more than then minimum at tc < 1, then I would think that all six of these AA89mTc playing strategies with KO for insurance and hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are important to reduce casino edge when playing into a casino disadvantage with medium bets out for cover.

[Dbs6582]

So I believe you are saying for cover you may have to play more than the absolute minimum at true counts of 1, 0 or even -1 so as to mask your bet spread.

If you are then betting more than you would really want to bet at these tc < 1 and so the casino has the edge then you should really be interested in making the best playing strategy deviations to reduce that casino edge as much as possible on these plays. And you should then want to concentrate on making the correct playing strategy deviations that have indices close to zero when you are betting more than the minimum for betting camouflage.

Important playing strategy deviations for these plays when tc = 0 or 1 for example when you are betting more than you would really want to bet would be hit/stand hard 12 v 3, 4, 5, 6 decisions. The tc(KO) indices for these plays are 2, 0, -2, -1 but the tc(KO) has a CC for these plays of only around 65% or so. If you use psrc = playing strategy running count = KO + AA89mTc for these plays you raise the CC from 65% to over 90%. So increasing the CC of these plays where larger than minimum bets are being made for betting cover then adding AA89mTc to KO helps reduce your disadvantage on these plays that you are betting more than you really wanted to for cover.

Also Gronbog's simulations showed that the majority of the gain from AA78mTc with HL (analogous AA89mTc with KO) was for insurance and hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. So besides hard 12 v 3, 4, 5, 6 where indices are low you also have insurance and hard 12 v 2 where the index is 4. But the strategy change for these plays is to insure or stand on hard 12 v 2 when tc(KO + AA89mTc) >= 4. So you could be betting a medium bet with a true count of even zero for cover and still stand on hard 12 v 2 or take insurance if tc(AA89mTc) > 4.

So when playing for betting cover by playing more than then minimum at tc < 1, then I would think that all six of these AA89mTc playing strategies with KO for insurance and hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are important to reduce casino edge when playing into a casino disadvantage with medium bets out for cover.

Bjanalyst, all excellent points and why I’ve been reading this thread and why I plan to buy one of your books. I want to improve my PE, not for cover, but to improve my play (win more money) with these hands.

My main concern with your system is complexity. I don’t want to judge it without better understanding and trying it, but at first glance it does appear rather complicated.

[bjanalyst]

Bjanalyst, all excellent points and why I’ve been reading this thread and why I plan to buy one of your books. I want to improve my PE, not for cover, but to improve my play (win more money) with these hands.

My main concern with your system is complexity. I don’t want to judge it without better understanding and trying it, but at first glance it does appear rather complicated.

It just takes a little practice. And I said I want to system to be simple but not so simple that the casinos can easily figure it out. I posted a chart with just the KO and 5m7c and KO and AA89mTc with chips in the chart to make is easier to see and I also posted simplified formulas as for example, stand on hard 15 v 7, 8, 9 and hard 16 v 7, 8, 9 when tc(KO) = 4 AND tc(5m7c) = 4, 3, 2, 2, 1.5, 1 respectively and other simplifications.

And of course, the main reason for these strategy changes is to increase your win rate.

But you probably will get some camouflage for free. The example I used above was hitting hard 12 v 6 with the decision to hit hard 12 v 6 if KO + AA89mTc < crc(-1) or equivalently the simplified formula (since crc(-1) is outside the table of critical running counts and would need to be calculated by using a formula such as crc(-1) = crc(0) - dr = 4*dp - dr which requires a little thinking) is hit hard 12 v 6 if AA89mTc < (2/3)*(-1 - t)*dr where t = tc(KO) which required less thinking. Use whichever is easiest.

But I did want to make one more point. If you hit for example hard 12 v 6 you are breaking basic strategy. Players at the table may comment and call you an idiot and blame you for losing their hand because you hit when they thought you should have stood. This is exactly what you want them to do. Bring it to the pit's attention that you made what they considered an idiotic play. Or you may even hesitate a while and then say I decided to hit hard 12 v 6. The pit knows that you are not supposed to hit this as it is a basic strategy stand so you might as well bring it to their attention exactly how "stupid" you are. They may think you cannot even play basic strategy and are a real loser.

Just a suggestion. Good luck and I think everyone on this post would like a testimonial from you if you could learn the system and how well you did with the system. So if you can post your experiences with the system that would be great. Thanks.

[Three]

Unlike BJanalyst, I have always said doing this type of count is very hard until you master it. Anything gets easy once you master it and practice enough. Lots of extra memorization for strategy. Definitely not for the simple approach proponents. To me, when he says this is easy, he losses his credibility for anything else he says. It can be easy, but it isn't easy.

[Dbs6582]

It can be easy, but it isn't easy.

That’s profound! I need to contemplate that for a while.

[bjanalyst]

Unlike BJanalyst, I have always said doing this type of count is very hard until you master it. Anything gets easy once you master it and practice enough. Lots of extra memorization for strategy. Definitely not for the simple approach proponents. To me, when he says this is easy, he losses his credibility for anything else he says. It can be easy, but it isn't easy.

My system is different from what others have been using so anything a little different will get resistance becuase it is the nature that people get comforatable with ahtat they are used to and do not like change.

As I explained KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c is my chosen count combination for the shoe game and I have gone in details the advantage of KO and XmYc side counts over HO2 level 2 balanced counts and Ace side counts and other advantaged. I listed 8 advantages of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c count over HO2 with ASC in a previous post which I will not repeat her. Please review that post.

I also posted a quick one page summary of KO with 5m7c and another one page summary of KO with AA89mTc along with simplifying formulas so that using this count information is easy. There is just one page of simplified information to memorize. again, I will not reposts what I have already posted - you can look for these one pages summaries on previous posts.

I also gave several techniques, including chips at least for the beginning, on how to keep these side counts. I would start with just one side count to begin with and then add the 2nd side count. So you can start with either AA89mTc or 5m7c and then add the other. For those how have a hard time mastering AA89mTc then I would suggest starting with 5m7c. 5m7c involves keeping track of only two ranks. It is very easy to keep track of only two ranks and you should not have a problem with 5m7c. Then you can add AA89mT at another time.

I have also discussed camouflage plays. You are using these side counts to increase your win rate but some weird strategy plays may help with casino camouflage and help you play longer - a side benefit that falls in place by itself.

So there are a lot of advantages.

As I stated it is good if a system is simple but you don't want it too simple. If it is too simple like the HL the casino or anyone else can figure it out. As I stated earlier, Don Johnson who wan millions for me the casino when asked about counting said that a monkey can count cards! So that is they HL system. It is so simple that the casinos can easily teach it to their staff and catch counters. Then casinos can also use the HL count with specific plays like insurance and splitting 10's, both from the I18, to catch counters by comparing when these plays are made and the HL count when these plays are made. So too simple is not very good either.

I think this system is simple. But others do not and that is a good thing. If you are having a hard time mastering this system then that is good That means the casinos will definitely not master this system. And the other good news is that with practice, you should be able to use this system quickly and easily. So through study and practice you can master this system and use it in the casino and get camouflage play from it also to fool the casino and for the casinos it is just too much work for them to master this system.

I would like to follow up on my comments on camouflage of when I was mentioned using AA89mTc with insurance and hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for camouflage. I will attach an exhibit showing the increase in HL CC for these plays when either HL with AA78mTc or even better when KO with AA89mTc is used. You can see large increases in CC of the order of 20% to 30%. So using these systems you will often make plays that deviate from the HL which are correct but look like mistakes and thus offering you free camouflage. I know that others said the casino mainly looks at bet spreads and insurance and splitting 10's but if hey see you doing something like hitting hard 12 v 6 when the tc(KO) is large and other players start complaining about you violating basic strategy or you pause and make it look like you are hitting this violation of basic strategy on a hunch with a large bet out, that may provide you additional cover.

Another value of keeping the KO and AA89mTc separately is that you know what the KO count is. SO you know for example that tc(KO) = 4 and the casino also knows that the count is high and they expect you to stand on hard 12 v 6. But if AA89mTc < (2/3)*(-1 - t)*dr where t = tc(KO) and if tc(KO) = 4 then if AA89mCt < (-3)*dr you would hit as explained above and you can make a big deal about it so that the casino knows you have a big bet out and you violated basics strategy of standing hon hard 12 v 6. And many other plays that I mentioned above.

I hope that someone is able to master this system, with practice, and try it out at the casino and then give everyone feedback.

So I am attaching insurance and hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 6 below for KO with AA89mTc.
Camoflague insurance & hard 12.jpg

[seriousplayer]

My system is different from what others have been using so anything a little different will get resistance becuase it is the nature that people get comforatable with ahtat they are used to and do not like change.

As I explained KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c is my chosen count combination for the shoe game and I have gone in details the advantage of KO and XmYc side counts over HO2 level 2 balanced counts and Ace side counts and other advantaged. I listed 8 advantages of KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c count over HO2 with ASC in a previous post which I will not repeat her. Please review that post.

I also posted a quick one page summary of KO with 5m7c and another one page summary of KO with AA89mTc along with simplifying formulas so that using this count information is easy. There is just one page of simplified information to memorize. again, I will not reposts what I have already posted - you can look for these one pages summaries on previous posts.

Your system is not new. Not true, not true at all! I like change but not negative change. I would most definitely resist changes that make things worst and I would never resist changes that make things better. People who say "do not like change" is trying to cover up the fact that they are making things worst. The reason why your system is not accepted is because you are adding too many components and you are trying to compare it to a system with less components that are powerful. The advantage you listed for KO with AA89mTc over Hi-OPT II with ASC are not really advantages that would outperform Hi-OPT II with ASC. Plus you have to side count 5 cards to get the same SCORE gain compare to Hi-OPT II which only side counts one card. So that is a disadvantage already. You have to stop making excuses to cover up that you are making negative change to better Hi-lo and KO. Why should you need to keep three component counts, even with casino chips?

[Tarzan]

I mentioned my honest assessment back on page 13, that what you've got there falls short of beating Hi-Opt2ASC, with what appears to be a hell of a lot of work to do it. My assessment hasn't changed since then. I can ACTUALLY outperform Hi-Opt2ASC with a much simpler practical application factor than what you've got there. The bottom line is your system sucks iguana balls, just way over the top from all appearances for a pitiful gain over Hi-Lo and nowhere close to Hi-Opt2ASC, much less outperforming it. Iguana balls are scaly, have been dragged over some dirt and sand, with rumors stating they taste a lot like Vegemite that is slightly past its shelf life, so not good at all!

[refinery]

When Tarzan thinks your system is overly complex....