See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 72 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 936

Thread: Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

  1. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I hope you do well with your book but I have found most don't understand what can happen when you get creative when counting. They try to relate to things they are familiar with that don't have the same potential. It is like trying to play 3 dimensional chess but failing to consider the 3 dimensional moves that the new way of doing things allow. Or playing triple yahtzee by completing each row before moving to the next row. The new procedures allow you to do things you couldn't with the old system. If you don't understand the new opportunities you will fail to consider them.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Plus I have found people are generally reluctant to change. Same goes for counters. They are used to the High Low and do not want to switch to the KO. And they especially do not want to include a side count to add to the KO that totally confuses them. That is why my 4th book is High Low with plus/minus side counts. I wrote it for the High-Low player that wants to stick with the High-Low. Another excellent side count to use with either KO or HL is Am6c. KO + Am6c

    Below is some analysis of HL + Am6c for the one deck indices. But the multiple deck indices are not that far different. Also as the CC increases the indices for any number of decks converge to the infinite deck indices. For example, KO + AA89mTc gives CC = 100% and you take insurance when KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4). The index is 4. Because CC = 100%. the index is independent of the number or decks, that is the index for insurance is a true count of 4 for any number of decks when using KO + AA89mTc = a perfect Ten count. So the larger the CC the less variance between incudes for a given number of decks. So not only is the strength of the count increased (CC increased) when using side counts, the indices for various decks all converge so that you do not have to memorize difference indices for different number of decks. ou are one of just a few people who understand what I did. Thanks,

    ==== My one deck HL with Am6c analysis which also applies to multiple decks without much change in the indices for multiple decks because CC is very high. ====

    Keep High Low (HL) for the one deck game with the side count Am6c (Ace minus Six) Count. Use HL + Am6c for insurance, HL + 2*(Am6c) for hit/stand hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T and use HL for betting and all other strategy changes .
    Here are some selected one deck indices derived from Effects of Removal for one deck (from Don Schlesinger's Black Jack Attack, 3rd edition) using Least Squares Line and Proportional Deflection both of which produce identical results.
    One deck indices for HL, Hi Opt 1, HL + Am6c for insurance and HL + 2*(Am6c) for hard 16 v 7, 8, 9, T, CC = Correlation Coefficient. HL + 2*(Am6c) has tag values of + 1 for Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, tag values of zero for 7, 8, 9. and tag value of -1 for 6 and Tens. So Ace are courted as + 1 and sixes as -1 in HL + 2*(Am6c) where Am6c = Ace minus Six count which is what is required for hard 16 v 7, 8, 9 and T. So for example, stand on hard 16 v 9 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 3*dr (2.6 is rounded up to 3) with CC = 83.9% where dr = decks remaining.
    HL + Am6c is the Gordon count where 2, 3, 4, 5 have tag values of +1 and Tens have a tag value of -1 which is what is used for insurance. Insure if HL + Am6c >= 2*dr for the single deck game
    One Deck Indices
    HighLow(HL) CC Hi-Opt 1 CC HL + Am6c CC HL+2*(Am6c) CC
    Insurance 1.4 78.9% 2.0 85.4% 2.0 85.4% - -
    hard 16 v T -0.1 54.9% -0.3 63.4% - - -0.5 86.7%
    hard 16 v 9 4.2 52.9% 3.4 58.3% - - 2.6 83.9%
    hard 16 v 8 8.8 48.6% 7.3 52.3% - - 5.4 79.2%
    hard 16 v 7 10.2 37.5% 8.2 41.7% - - 5.4 71.3%
    Stand on hard 16 v T if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 0, Stand on hard 16 v 9 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 3*dr and Stand on hard 16 v 7 and hard 16 v 8 if HL + 2*(Am6c) >= 6*dr. Insure if HL + Am6c >= 2*dr and then use HL for all other strategy changes and for betting. dr = decks remaining.

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    In my opinion, people aren't buying your books because they aren't easily digested. I like to think I'm more knowledgeable than most on the subject and I don't follow most of what you write.

    We've spoken in person, CM, and unfortunately I understood less of what you were saying than what you've written. I'm happy to call this my shortcoming, not yours, but what you have doesn't seem to be marketable. An average person can be up and running using KO in a couple of days. My concerns aren't something more complicated even if it's more powerful. My concern is finding places to play and get enough money in the table.

    What you're doing is impressive but unfortunately that doesn't sell books.

    Incidentally, I've only seen your first book. Where can I find the other two?

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I spoke to you before? Then you must have my email and/or phone number. Please email or call me directly as neither my email nor phone number has changed.

    I taught my friend Carla the KO with AA89mTc. Carla has no special gifts and is just of average intelligence so if she can do it so can anyone else who is motivated. Carla is not that smart at all but Carla is very motivated to make money so she eastly keeps both KO and AA89mTc and I have checked her multiple tmes and she keeps both counts very well with almost no errors. Any discrepancies between the counts Carla keeps and what I keep, when we are both counting the same table, are differences of one running count point and usually no differences at all - we usually agree exactly. So keeping both counts is very, very, very easy.

    Carla keeps both counts in her head and does not have any problem - they are just two integers to keep in your head. You can also use chips to keep AA89mTc if necessary and in the shoe game there is plenty of time to update the AA89mTc and plenty of cancelations. So it is not that hard to use. The theory I can understand others having problems following but not the actual use in the casino which is very, very easy.

    When I developed these counts my primacy goal was to make them easy for use in the casino and I believe that I have accomplished that. I had three goals and I believe I have delivered on all three goals. My goals were
    (1) Easy of use
    (2) Power (as measured by CC of the tag values of the derived count with EoR for each strategic situation)
    (3) Accuracy of true count calculations (which is why I like KO with its side counts and pivot of a true count of 4).

    Also to check that my spreadsheet gave correct results, I used my spreadsheet to calculate indices for the HL count. The indices calculated from my spreadsheet exactly match published HL indices which gives me more confidence that my calculations in my spreadsheet are correct.

    I am sorry to hear that you are having trouble following what I wrote and you are very knowledgeable about blackjack. If you buy my other two books and read them, then let me known if you still have problem following what I wrote. If you read the entire books I think what I wrote should be clearer.

    My other books are on Xlibris and Amazon and they can be found by going to those websites and searching for BJANALYST or for the name of my books. Even easier go to any search engine such a google and just google the names of my books or google BJANALYST and they will come up.

    The e-books are only $3 or $4. So I cannot see that it is the price that is keeping people from buying. Download the PDF version of the e-books as the epub and mobi versions have resolution issues and are blurry and difficult to read.

    Here are my books.

    (1) KO with Table of Critical Running Counts
    (2) KO with 45m79c (I changed my mind and suggest 5m7c instead which is covered in my 3rd book)
    (3) KO with 45m79c and AA89mTc (again use 5m7c instead of 45m79c. I cover 5m7c in this book)

    My third book also covers Katerina Walker's Spanish 21 where she uses HL which is unbalanced with a true count of 4 since the 10's are out of the Spanish 21 deck and the KO table of critical running counts can be used with Spanish 21 HL. I also use for S17 game brc (betting running count) = S21.HL + (1/2)*(455m8AAc). And I even show additional side counts for Spanish 21.

    And the book I am currently working on is High-Low with Plus/Minus side counts which should be on the market in January. I have also included in this 4th book direct comparison of HL with side counts and KO with side counts.

    As I mentioned to you before, I suggest HL for the double deck or single deck game where the counts vary greatly, all hands must be played and the true counts are often outside the table of critical running counts. For the shoe game, I suggest KO with its side counts. I personally use KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c which is covered in my 3rd and will also be covered in my 4th book when published. I wrote the Hi Low with plus minus side counts for (1) the double deck and single deck game (2) those players who love he HL and refuse to give up the HL and do not want to learn the KO unbalanced count or the table of critical running counts. As I said for the shoe game I much prefer KO with its side counts but wrote this book because of obstinance of many HL players that I meet who refused to switch to the KO for the shoe game.

    Since KO has a pivot of a true count of 4 then errors in calculation of true counts around the true count of 4 where maximum bets are made are totally independent of the decks remaining at KO true count of 4 and at KO true count of 5 are only (1/5)th as sensitive to errors in estimation decks played as the HL and at KO true count of 6 are only (1/3)rd as sensitive to errors in estimating decks played as the HL. Accuracy in true counts at these higher true counts where maximum bets are made is very important and the KO with its side counts delivers! For the KO count, estimation of deck remaining to the nearest full deck is more than adequate. No need to estimate to the nearest half deck and no need for pesky true count conversions with estimation of decks remaining and division estimations - just use the table of critical running counts and no division and greater accuracy at KO true counts of three or greater.

    I am using Xlibris to publish my book only. I need to find someone else to market my book as last year, Xlibris paid me total royalties of only $2 for all of last year. So that means I sold only one book in an entire year? I read online some other negative reviews on Xlibris not paying royalties so for now I am using them only to publish my book.

    I am also including Schlesinger's Illustrious 18 using HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc. Note the huge increase in CC. The HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc rivals the Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces and is much easier to use than the Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces. Being plus/minus side counts, the AA78mTc and AA89mTc are exact with no estimation of excess or deficiencies of Aces as is used with the Hi Opt 2 and the HL and KO are level one counts compared to Hi Opt 2 which is a difficult Level 2. count.

    I have also included Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces. Be examining Illustrious 18 weighted CC for HL with AA78mTc, KO with AA89mTc and Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces, it can be seen the HL with AA78mTc and KO with AA89mTc are just as powerful as Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces and also much, much easier to use.

    HL with AA78mTc.jpg
    KO with AA89mTc.jpg
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-22-2018 at 05:20 PM.

  5. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    So keeping both counts is very, very, very easy.
    I might agree with this statement, but I would add learning to be able to do both counts at once is not that easy. Once you mastered that skill it should become easy, after enough experience. But not everyone has the drive to get to the point where they can do the count to begin with. People use KO because it is so easy. People that use a multi-level ace neutral count don't care about learning something more difficult. They already made that decision before they went to such a count. You might have better luck with that group of individuals. The potential gain from side counting for playing purposes is traditionally proportional to the playing strength of the main count. But this isn't traditional side counting. Might as well start with a strong ace neutral playing main count and use a combined count for betting and other combined counts for playing. Starting with a strong betting count might avoid some issues that starting with the strong playing count has to deal with. The right combination requires some research. It looks like you have done a lot of research so hopefully you already looked at that.

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The KO is my primary suggested count for the shoe game that I have been recommending all along. My first book was KO with Table of Critical Running. And I already showed you that the true counts greater than 3 that the KO true count calculations are much more accurate than the HL true count calculations and are less sensitive to errors in estimating decks played than the HL. Just “look up” the true count in the Table of Critical Running Counts. No need for division and estimation of decks remaining to the nearest deck is more than good enough.

    So we are both talking about the same thing here – we are both talking about the KO. I and NOT recommending trashing the KO or forgetting everything you know about the KO. To the contrary I have suggested keeping the KO and add to its strength by including the AA89mTc.

    I explained in a previous post that I taught my friend Carla how to keep KO count and the AA89mTc. Carla is not very bright at all and she can keep both counts flawlessly. Carla might not be bright but she is motivate to make money! She easily and tirelessly for hours on end keeps two integers in her head, the KO and AA89mTc and she does not make mistakes because I have checked her many times and she was right on. It is VERY easy to do. The AA89mTc when added to the KO also give a perfect Ten count which can be used for the Lucky Ladies bet, insurance, and hit stand hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

    Carla knew nothing about counting when I meet her and I taught her both the KO and the AA89mTc and she was proficient at both in a matter of a few weeks! It is that easy. It is also extremely powerful (high CC with EoR) and very accurate (give very accurate true counts at true counts of 3 or greater).

    Let me clarify again how easy keeping AA89mTc with the KO is and how easy it is to use. I explained how to keep the AA89mTc in a previous post. To use is all you to do is, for a given playing strategy situation, see if KO + k*(AA89mTc) >= crc(Idx) where Idx - index for the playing strategy decision and crc(Idx) is "looked up" in the table of critical running counts with no calculations required and dr estimated to the nearest deck. Then just multiply AA89mTc by "k" and add to KO and compare the sum to crc(Idx) to make your decision. This is as eash as possible. So for example, hard 12 v 2 hit/stand if KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n. For n = 6 decks, crc(4) = 24 and so stand on hard 12 v 2 if KO + AA89mTc >= 24. how hard is it to make that decision

    If you need to you can use chips for the AA89mTc. There is PLENTY of time in the shoe game to scan updating the AA89mTc to add to the KO. In addition the AA89mTc when added to the KO gives PERFECT insurance decision and insurance is the most important playing strategy variation – take insurance when KO + AA89mTc >= crc(4) = 4*n where n = number of decks.

    Also you suggested Ace neutral primary count with side counts. There is really no need for that. By choosing various values of k in KO + k*(AA89mTc) the Ace can be made to have a tag value of -1, 0 or 1 or another tag value that maximizes the absolute value of CC between the tag values of the derived count and the EoR.

    Read my previous posts or spend $4 for my three online books (fourth book coming out) and you will see.

    KO with AA89mTc is (1) EASY TO USE (2) POWERFUL (high CC) and (3) ACCURATE (true count calculations).
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-22-2018 at 07:32 PM.

  7. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Also you suggested Ace neutral primary count with side counts.
    Actually that is not really what I said. I said with traditional side counts... and pointed out you weren't using a traditional side count. What is best for what you are doing is more random chance depending on how issues are created or solved when using the combined counts with a main count. You are right, it isn't necessary. But one approach or the other will be more effective depending on what combined counts are best overall. Both approaches will have matchups they are better at and matchups they are worse at. I call this chaos random but it really isn't. It is just not predictable without simming both approaches.

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Actually using Effects of Removal and Correlation Coefficients with the tag values of the derived counts is more accurate than simulations and three is no "random chaos" in my approach.

    The Effects of Removal were calculated to six decimal places with combinatorial analysis of all possible combinations for that particular situation. The EoR for each card in a given situation are a least squares line estimate but they are still very, very good. These EoR for each situation are listed in Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack 3rd edition. When you do simulations you are going through many, many trials hitting on all of these combinations that have already been taken into account in the EoR. It required a lot of computer power to calculate the EoR to six decimal places for each situation that was only published a few years ago by Don Schlesinger. In Peter Griffins time the EoR were just approximate and to only a few decimal places.

    So to double check that my calculations with the EoR were correct, what I did, as I explained earlier, was that I calculated the indices for HL with my spreadsheet. I tested almost every index I could find for the HL. Over 100 indices as I also checked negative indices. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, the calculated indices from the EoR agreed 100% with the published indices generated from simulations.

    The EoR calculation are very quick and have zero variance as opposed to simulations that require millions and millions of hands. There is no "random chance" here.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-22-2018 at 08:11 PM.

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Actually using Effects of Removal and Correlation Coefficients with the tag values of the derived counts is more accurate than simulations. The Effects of Removal were calculated to six decimal places with combinatorial analysis of all possible combinations for that particular situation.
    Correct...but only for one card removed, not as an average. This will affect your resulting index point when generating them via algebraic analysis.
    The EoR are a least squares line estimate but they are still very, very good. These EoR for each situation are listed in Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack 3rd edition. When you do simulations you are going through many, many trials hitting on all of these combinations that have already been taken into account in the EoR. It required a lot of computer power to calculate the EoR to six decimal places for each situation that was only published a few years ago by Don Schlesinger. In Peter Griffins time the EoR were just approximate and to only a few decimal places.
    Yes, and today, one can build a simulator that is orders of magnitude faster than what Griffin used. Also, I am not aware of any threaded applications that Griffin could have used on the old dinosaurs he worked on. Today, one can build a multi-threaded simulator or even a blazing fast CA (see MGP, Eric Farmer, iCountNtrack, k_c, et al.) Our very own site host has a blazing fast simulator suite!
    So to double check that my calculations with the EoR were correct, what I did, as I explained earlier, was that I calculated the indices for HL with my spreadsheet. I tested almost every index I could find for the HL. Over 100 indices as I also checked negative indices. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, the calculated indices from the EoR agreed 100% with the published indices generated from simulations.
    Did you do this via Monte Carlo simulation or CA? What do you mean by this?
    The EoR calculation are very quick and have zero variance as opposed to simulations that require millions and millions of hands. There is no "random chance" here.
    Again, a CA can help with this. See Farmers CA for an example.

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Don Schlesinger's Effects of Removal (EoR) publishined in his book Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition. were calculated from CA (combinatorial analysis) and that is what I used.
    I welcome critical analysis of my technique and I would like you to try to pull apart my analysis if you can. So I will give you the opportunity to prove me right or wrong now if you can do simulations.

    I would like you to analyze the simplest simulations possible using a canned program you have for HL simulations making only six strategy changes that I will outline below using the AA78mTc. Continue to use the HL for all other strategy changes and for betting. I am asking you to use the HL and not the KO since he HL is balanced and involves less changes and less chances for errors than if you used the KO for example. I want to isolate only these six changes that I will outline below with the HL count.

    Let Tc = pseudo Ten Count = HL + AA78mTc where AA78mTc means the Ace is counts ias + 2, the 7 and 8 as +1 and the Tens as -1.

    Please look at the following attached file:

    HL & AA78mTc.jpg

    You will see that if you calculated Tc = pseudo Ten count = HL + AA78mTc, you get a count which has a CC of over 98% with a perfect Ten count. Now what we will do is use the best of both. Use the HL where the HL is the better count and use the Tc where the Tc is the better count.

    So what I would like you to do then is get a program that simulates the HL and make only the six changes to that program where the Tc is used instead of using the HL. dr = decks remaining.

    (1) Insure if Tc = HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

    (2) Stand on hard 12 v 2 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

    (3) Stand on hard 12 v 3 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 2*dr

    (4) Stand on hard 12 v 4 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 0

    (5) Stand on hard 12 v 5 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= (-2)*dr

    (6) Stand on hard 12 v 6 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= (-1)*dr

    Make ONLY the above six changes in your HL simulation program. Continue to use the HL for betting and for all other playing strategy variations.

    Then compare the results of the HL with these six changes with the HL alone and let me know what happens.

    What you are doing is choosing to use the best count for each situation. You use the Tc where the Tc works best which is for insurance and for standing on hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. You use the HL where the HL count is best which is for all other situations. Actually there are other situations where the AA78mTc improves the HL but the six I mentioned above are the most important and I want to make the simulation as simple as possible with making the minimum number of changes to prove my point and reduce the chance for errors by making only six small changes to a proven HL program.

    So run the program with just the HL and then run the same program with the AA78mTc used with the HL for the six situations mentioned above and the HL for all other situations and for betting.

    I want you to try to prove me wrong. Please let me know what happens.

    I do not have access to simulations but if you do why don't you test this very simple simulation. I want to be proven right or wrong through simulations.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-22-2018 at 08:57 PM.

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Don Schlesinger's Effects of Removal (EoR) publishined in his book Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition. were calculated from CA (combinatorial analysis) and that is what I used.
    I welcome critical analysis of my technique and I would like you to try to pull apart my analysis if you can. So I will give you the opportunity to prove me right or wrong now if you can do simulations.
    Not here to prove anything. You seems to be invested in your idea and am curious how you came about this project.
    I would like you to analyze the simplest simulations possible using a canned program you have for HL simulations making only six strategy changes that I will outline below using the AA78mTc. Continue to use the HL for all other strategy changes and for betting. I am asking you to use the HL and not the KO since he HL is balanced and involves less changes and less chances for errors than if you used the KO for example. I want to isolate only these six changes that I will outline below with the HL count.

    Let Tc = pseudo Ten Count = HL + AA78mTc where AA78mTc means the Ace is counts ias + 2, the 7 and 8 as +1 and the Tens as -1.

    Please look at the following attached file:

    HL & AA78mTc.jpg

    You will see that if you calculated Tc = pseudo Ten count = HL + AA78mTc, you get a count which has a CC of over 98% with a perfect Ten count. Now what we will do is use the best of both. Use the HL where the HL is the better count and use the Tc where the Tc is the better count.

    So what I would like you to do then is get a program that simulates the HL and make only the six changes to that program where the Tc is used instead of using the HL. dr = decks remaining.

    (1) Insure if Tc = HL + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

    (2) Stand on hard 12 v 2 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 4*dr

    (3) Stand on hard 12 v 3 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 2*dr

    (4) Stand on hard 12 v 4 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= 0

    (5) Stand on hard 12 v 5 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= (-2)*dr

    (6) Stand on hard 12 v 6 if Tc = KO + AA78mTc >= (-1)*dr

    Make ONLY the above six changes in your HL simulation program. Continue to use the HL for betting and for all other playing strategy variations.

    Then compare the results of the HL with these six changes with the HL alone and let me know what happens.
    Interesting! Unfortunately, I don't have access to a current simulator at this time. I would imagine that you would have done some sim work for your system before publishing you finding. Maybe something to consider? Would be interesting to include sim data for your fourth book. An idea?
    What you are doing is choosing to use the best count for each situation. You use the Tc where the Tc works best which is for insurance and for standing on hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. You use the HL where the HL count is best which is for all other situations. Actually there are other situations where the AA78mTc improves the HL but the six I mentioned above are the most important and I want to make the simulation as simple as possible with making the minimum number of changes to prove my point and reduce the chance for errors by making only six small changes to a proven HL program.

    So run the program with just the HL and then run the same program with the AA78mTc used with the HL for the six situations mentioned above and the HL for all other situations and for betting.

    I want you to try to prove me wrong. Please let me know what happens.

    I do not have access to simulations but if you do why don't you test this very simple simulation. I want to be proven right or wrong through simulations.
    This above quote suggests that I have struck a nerve with you. Did I offend you in any way?

  12. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Don Schlesinger's Effects of Removal (EoR) publishined in his book Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition. were calculated from CA (combinatorial analysis) and that is what I used.
    Dog's point is EoR's are squishy. You are using full deck EoR's. After one card is removed they change ever so slightly. After a few decks are removed they may change a lot more than that depending on the cards removed. So your calculations are based on an assumption you know to be wrong. That is the full deck EoR's don't change as cards are removed. As cards are removed the algebraic method continues to use the same EoRs. More accurate calculations are made via sim for the different TCs. I don't think it makes a lot of difference until it does. But those deck compositions may be rare. Accuracy is about being closer to the estimates used from sim or any other method. The higher the standard deviation around the average the less accurate the average is for every calculation you use. The squishy EoR's are one cause of inaccuracy using the method you used. No method is 100% accurate but some are more accurate than others. The more accurate your averages are the higher you can bet when everything else is kept the same (RoR, BR, spread, etc). A measure of how much more accurate your system gets you can be seen by comparing optimal bets for the same spread, BR, RoR, etc. If it is more accurate you should have a higher min bet and max bet for the same spread, BR, RoR, etc as generated as optimal bets for approaches being compared by a simulation. Don's EoRs are great and our only starting point, but they aren't a constant throughout the shoe.

  13. #26


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    No, You did not offend me. I like challenges and I want my calculations to be correct of course. Actually I am glad that you are challenging and questioning my results instead of blinding taking what I say at face value. I want to know the truth and if I made a mistake I would like to know.

    You say EoR are "squishy". But Don Schlesinger's has EoR to six significant digits. If they were that "squishy" then why calculate to six significant digits?

    I do not have access to any simulations. I was hoping you did. Plus I would like independent verification of my work. Even if I had simulation software I should not be trying to prove my own work. My work should be independently verified.

    Even though I do not have actual simulations of HL using Tc = HL + AA78mTc for the six situations mentioned previously, I do have indirect simulation verification in that I used my LSL program to calculate indices for the HL and the indices generated from my LSL program exactly match the published HL indices obtained through simulations. Every index that I tested with my LSL program agreed with published indices. My LSL program gave correct results for dozens of cases and I did not find one case that disagreed with the published HL indices. Thus I am very confident that my results are correct.

    Another indication that my LSL program is correct is that I calculated weighted CC (which shows playing efficiency) for various counts such as HL, KO, Hi Opt 1, Hi Opt 2 and more and as expected weighted CC of Hi Opt 2 was the highest which was higher than Hi Opt 1 which was higher than KO which was higher than HL which are the same results obtained through simulations.

    So basically, I have not found a single situation where results from my LSL program disagree with published results for known counts.

    Based on my calculations presented earlier that showed that the weighted CC of the HL + k*(AA78mTc) are approximately equal to the weighted CC of Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces, my guess is that simulations would show that the HL + k*(AA78mTc) has approximately the same power as Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces.

    I have heard that with less then one deck remaining, strange things happen and non-linearity may set in so you may be correct that there are some errors in EoR with less than one deck remaining. But I play the shoe game and the dealers all cut off alt least one deck. So for the shoe game with the cut card at one deck or more, the linearity of the EoR is a very good approximation. Also it should be noted that the insurance bet is the one blackjack bet that is totally linear and insurance is the most important playing strategy variation which is improved by using Tc = HL + AA78mTc. .

    If someone could plug in the six changes I mentioned previously into a canned HL simulation program using Tc instead of HL only for those six situations that would be great. Such a sim should show a substantial improvement. The CC of Tc = HL + AA78mTc with EoR for those six situations are of the order of 20% to 30% more than the CC of HL with EoR for those situations. The differences are big and should show up in simulations.

    If you know anyone who has simulation software and they can run a HL simulation with just these six changes and compare it with a HL simulation with no changes that would be great. I would like to see the results at which point we can see who is correct and if the differences you point out are significant or not. I think the huge increase in CC for these six situations will overwhelm any "errors" that you mentioned above.

    Below are calculations of indices for doubling on hard 9 v 2 that I gave before. I am listing it again to address one of the points that you made and to show you clearly how I calculated indices.. For a given playing strategy situation let EoR(c) = EoR for card 'c" removed from one deck. Then there are 51 cards remaining. This is how the one deck EoR was calculated for each playing strategy situation. So what I did was calculate the slope of the LSL between EoR and the tag values of he derived count. Then I calculate AACpTCp = Average Advantage Change per True Count point as AACpTCp = (51/52)*(LSL slope). Then I calculated Index as Full Deck House Advantage (FHDA) / AACpTCp to get the infinite deck index. As the CC increases the difference in indices between different number of decks decreases and they all converge to the infinite deck indices.

    But if you can provide simulations for the above six situations I mentioned that would be great. I would be very interested in the results.

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-23-2018 at 05:43 AM. Reason: redoing post to be clearer

Page 2 of 72 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. High Edge Side Bets
    By knoxstrong in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-26-2021, 07:44 AM
  2. Adding AA78mTc to High Low
    By bjanalyst in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-27-2021, 05:21 AM
  3. Betting side bet lucky ladies on High Counts?
    By Tenlavuu in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-01-2018, 05:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.