## Poll

 Definitely Won't Work. No votes (0%) Might work, but Only Marginally. 6 votes (85.71%) Outlandish, Ridiculous! 2 votes (28.57%) Unheard of, but Reserve Judgment No votes (0%)

7 members have voted

aceside
Joined: May 14, 2021
• Posts: 48
Thanks for this post from:
May 19th, 2021 at 7:37:05 PM permalink
Quote: Moraine

3) Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC = 0.97 + 0.51 + 0.76 = 2.24. Within what percentage (can be either + or -) of that 2.24 sum total of Hi-Lo a new system must have in order to be considered a REASONABLY EFFECTIVE COUNTING SYSTEM?

THANKS.

It is completely wrong to use the sum of BC+PE+IC. Theoretically you can have a BC of 100% and an IC of 100%, but you can never have a PE greater than 76%. These three things are calculated in different areas of math. What is the meaning of the total sum?
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
• Posts: 71
Thanks for this post from:
May 19th, 2021 at 8:49:55 PM permalink
Thank you for giving a math lesson in blackjack.

Sum totals are listed in Encyclopedia of Blackjack. I think a comparison based on sum total can serve as a rough guide at least.

If you consider sum total comparisons meaningless, please give the % (can be +, - or 0) of each individual efficiency coefficient WITHIN WHICH that you may consider a system - NOT NECESSARILY MY PROPOSED SYSTEM -- reasonably effective.
aceside
Joined: May 14, 2021
• Posts: 48
Thanks for this post from:
May 20th, 2021 at 7:55:55 AM permalink
Quote: Moraine

Thank you for giving a math lesson in blackjack.

Sum totals are listed in Encyclopedia of Blackjack. I think a comparison based on sum total can serve as a rough guide at least.

If you consider sum total comparisons meaningless, please give the % (can be +, - or 0) of each individual efficiency coefficient WITHIN WHICH that you may consider a system - NOT NECESSARILY MY PROPOSED SYSTEM -- reasonably effective.

I don’t give anybody any lesson but Encyclopedia of Blackjack probably is not a reliable source of reference. I propose to use a new coefficient to evaluate a count system, which I name co-efficiency=BCxPE. This co-efficiency will balance BC and PE to obtain an optimal trade off. The IC should be independently treated because the insurance bet is just a side bet as it will not affect the main game of blackjack by even a little bit. Side bets usually should be guided by additional side counts so that the main game of blackjack is not affected.
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
• Posts: 434
Thanks for this post from:
May 20th, 2021 at 9:46:20 AM permalink
This might be okay for a very aggressive player who always takes insurance when called for.

"Reinventing the wheel" is an over used term whenever someone suggests anything other than HiLo. Im not so sure the cheese was firm on Mr Griffins cracker when he worked out Effect of Removal. Hi Lo gives the same weight to the 2 and the 5. That is bound to create volatilty. Maybe one should just "tighten their seat belt."
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
• Posts: 71
Thanks for this post from:
May 20th, 2021 at 12:16:32 PM permalink
Quote: aceside

I don’t give anybody any lesson but Encyclopedia of Blackjack probably is not a reliable source of reference. I propose to use a new coefficient to evaluate a count system, which I name co-efficiency=BCxPE. This co-efficiency will balance BC and PE to obtain an optimal trade off. The IC should be independently treated because the insurance bet is just a side bet as it will not affect the main game of blackjack by even a little bit. Side bets usually should be guided by additional side counts so that the main game of blackjack is not affected.

Conceptually, I cannot figure out what BC x PE may mean. It is beyond my ability to make further comment on that point.

As to your point that IC should be independently treated, the point seems to reflect your earlier point to a certain extent that the sum total of BC+ PE +IC has no meaning.

I proposed again that you may give the %-limit for each individual coefficient, and we may proceed on that basis. PLEASE HELP.
Last edited by: Moraine on May 20, 2021
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
• Posts: 71
Thanks for this post from:
May 20th, 2021 at 12:30:36 PM permalink
Quote: moses

This might be okay for a very aggressive player who always takes insurance when called for.

"Reinventing the wheel" is an over used term whenever someone suggests anything other than HiLo. Im not so sure the cheese was firm on Mr Griffins cracker when he worked out Effect of Removal. Hi Lo gives the same weight to the 2 and the 5. That is bound to create volatilty. Maybe one should just "tighten their seat belt."

I know some "AGRRESIVE TEAM PLAYERS" boast this approach:

One do the Easier Hi-Lo Main Count, the other Do the Harder Ten Count Side Count.
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
• Posts: 434
Thanks for this post from:
May 20th, 2021 at 2:12:20 PM permalink
Bet Correlation is .867. Playing Efficiency .473. Insurance Correlation is .821.

HiLo is .970 BC. .511 PE. .760 IC.

Thus your strength comes from IC.

Have you ran a simulation?
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
• Posts: 71
May 20th, 2021 at 2:55:25 PM permalink
Quote: moses

Bet Correlation is .867. Playing Efficiency .473. Insurance Correlation is .821.

HiLo is .970 BC. .511 PE. .760 IC.

Thus your strength comes from IC.

Have you ran a simulation?

Many years back, I went to a “Card Counting Efficiency Calculator” freely available to all at certain internet site (can't type in the site name here). I got the numbers for BC, PE and IC for the-High-Only, Hi-Lo and Ten Count. The numbers I got then were as follows:

High-Only System: 0.8906, 0.4949, 0.8433
Hi-Lo: 0.9682, 0.5114, 0.7601
Ten Count: 0.7226, 0.6117, and 1.0000

When I revisited the site the other day, the site seemed to have an “Adobe Flash” problem. It is no longer working !!!
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013