Poll

No votes (0%)
6 votes (85.71%)
2 votes (28.57%)
No votes (0%)

7 members have voted

moses
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 434
Thanks for this post from:
Moraine
May 20th, 2021 at 4:12:14 PM permalink
Quote: Moraine

Yes, -1 point value to 10, J, Q, K and Ace. 0 to all the rest.

PS -- I have one non-traditional method to boost the IC of the-High-Only to 1.000 to match that of Ed Thorp's Ten Count. But that requires more explanations.



Thorp's Ten count is a great 2nd count for insurance decisions.

But as a primary count with an Ace included? A RC 12 (in a 52 card deck) equates to 50% tens/Aces remain and 50% other cards remain. The risk is not knowing the deck composition of the 2-9s. A deck rich in 10,A could also be rich in say 3-7s etc, etc.

I get what you're saying/doing. Thinking outside the box is good.🖒 Hard to say if it's worth it without running a sim.
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
May 20th, 2021 at 4:30:21 PM permalink
Quote: moses

Thorp's Ten count is a great 2nd count for insurance decisions.

But as a primary count with an Ace included? A RC 12 (in a 52 card deck) equates to 50% tens/Aces remain and 50% other cards remain. The risk is not knowing the deck composition of the 2-9s. A deck rich in 10,A could also be rich in say 3-7s etc, etc.

I get what you're saying/doing. Thinking outside the box is good.🖒 Hard to say if it's worth it without running a sim.



THANKS.

Ace is included in the PRIMARY COUNT.

With an Ace side count, the "High-Only system" will have 100% IC.
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
May 21st, 2021 at 9:09:34 AM permalink
Thanks to ALL for comments so far. HOPE THERE ARE MORE COMING !!!
Regarding where to draw a line on system effectiveness, does the following make sense?

A. Use Hi-Lo’s BC, PE and IC as the bench-mark numbers.
B. An Effective counting system must meet the following MINIMUM THRESHOLD:

1. Each INDIVIUAL coefficient of a system cannot be LESS THAN ______% the corresponding coefficients of Hi-Lo.
2. The combined BC + PE + IC must be NO LESS THAN _____ % of the combined BC + PE +IC of Hi-Lo.
3. EXCEPT FOR systems published prior to 1980, an Effective System must have at least _____known deviation indices when SURRENDER IS NOT AVAILABLE.
4. EXCEPT FOR systems published prior to 1980, an Effective system must have at least _____known Surrender Indices.

PLEASE GIVE your recommended for the blanks in:

Blank # 1. _______; 3 _________;3_________;4___________
moses
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 434
Thanks for this post from:
Moraine
May 21st, 2021 at 10:58:12 AM permalink
I used to think along the same lines as you. HiLo being the benchmark for BC, PE, IC.

Ive learned it all comes down to SCORE.

Selecting a count or grouping numbers isnt as much about winning as it is what gets in your head when you lose.
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
May 21st, 2021 at 9:33:18 PM permalink
Quote: moses



Selecting a count or grouping numbers isnt as much about winning as it is what gets in your head when you lose.



Very True, the original developer RETURNED TO HIS HOME-MADE "Counting-the-High-Only" system AFTER A TERRIBLE LOSS WITH Hi-Lo -- a loss he later said was his LUCKIEST LOSS EVER.
Last edited by: Moraine on May 21, 2021
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
May 21st, 2021 at 9:40:11 PM permalink
Quote: Moraine

Thanks to ALL for comments so far. HOPE THERE ARE MORE COMING !!!
Regarding where to draw a line on system effectiveness, does the following make sense?

A. Use Hi-Lo’s BC, PE and IC as the bench-mark numbers.
B. An Effective counting system must meet the following MINIMUM THRESHOLD:

1. Each INDIVIUAL coefficient of a system cannot be LESS THAN ______% the corresponding coefficients of Hi-Lo.
2. The combined BC + PE + IC must be NO LESS THAN _____ % of the combined BC + PE +IC of Hi-Lo.
3. EXCEPT FOR systems published prior to 1980, an Effective System must have at least _____known deviation indices when SURRENDER IS NOT AVAILABLE.
4. EXCEPT FOR systems published prior to 1980, an Effective system must have at least _____known Surrender Indices.

PLEASE GIVE your recommended for the blanks in:

Blank # 1. _______; 3 _________;3_________;4___________



PLEASE PROPOSE A NEW ONE or pick from the following:

Standard A (Easy): 70%, 75%, 6 and 2 for Blanks #1, 2, 3 and 4 Respectively.
REMARK: This standard will allow a few well-known systems, such as Thorp’s Ten Count, to also make the cut. (Ten Count’s PE and IC are much higher than Hi-Lo’s numbers, but its BC is only 74% of Hi-Lo’s BC.)

Standard B: (Moderate): 80%, 85%, 18, 4
REMARK: Counters are familiar with the terms of Illustrious 18 and Fabulous 4, and may expect to have at least that many indices from any systems.

Standard C (Strict): 90%, 95%, 36, 8
REMARK: Hi-Lo has hundreds of deviation indices. (See Stanford Wong’s Professional Blackjack.) With additional indices, a counter can use the lesser known indices for camouflage as well as for winning more when the opportunities arise.
Last edited by: Moraine on May 21, 2021
moses
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 434
May 22nd, 2021 at 10:53:06 AM permalink
My research and sims render the 2 closer to neutral. Like the 8. Somebody must have bumped their head when doing EOR calculations back on calculators in the 60s and computers in the 70s.

Thus BC and PE are useless. That wipes out most of the old school books. Thorp talked about the removal of the 5. As I recall, he also had an Ace,5 count.

Don S is still around and ready , willing, and able to answer all questions. SCORE will provide a fair comparison with modern technology.
Last edited by: moses on May 22, 2021
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
May 22nd, 2021 at 1:58:13 PM permalink
Quote: Moraine

PLEASE PROPOSE A NEW ONE or pick from the following:

Standard A (Easy): 70%, 75%, 6 and 2 for Blanks #1, 2, 3 and 4 Respectively.
REMARK: This standard will allow a few well-known systems, such as Thorp’s Ten Count, to also make the cut. (Ten Count’s PE and IC are much higher than Hi-Lo’s numbers, but its BC is only 74% of Hi-Lo’s BC.)

Standard B: (Moderate): 80%, 85%, 18, 4
REMARK: Counters are familiar with the terms of Illustrious 18 and Fabulous 4, and may expect to have at least that many indices from any systems.

Standard C (Strict): 90%, 95%, 36, 8
REMARK: Hi-Lo has hundreds of deviation indices. (See Stanford Wong’s Professional Blackjack.) With additional indices, a counter can use the lesser known indices for camouflage as well as for winning more when the opportunities arise.



In addition to the earlier May 21st, 2021, 9:40:11 PM post, I would like to provide the following basic info for evaluating the Counting-the-High’s relative effectiveness.

1. The BC, PE and IC of “Counting-the-High system” are 0.89, 0.49 and 0.84, respectively, while Hi-Lo’s corresponding numbers are 0.97, 0.51 and 0.76, respectively. (See AceMT and Hi-Lo in Encyclopedia of Blackjack, Card Counting System Comparisons, for each system's respective BC, PE and IC, and their sum totals.)
2. Counting-the-High's BC+PE+IC = 2.22 while Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC = 2.24. Counting-the-High thus attains 99.1% of Hi-Lo's number.
3. Counting-the-High has 90 published Deviation Indices for S17 Blackjack as of 2/9/2021.
4. Counting-the-High has 14 published Surrender Indices for S17 Blackjack as of 2/9/2021..

Notes:
• Counting-the-High is identified as AceMT in Encyclopedia of Blackjack.
• Counting-the-High's numbers of published Deviation Indices and Surrender Indices are based upon the info in Chapters 7 and 8 of AceMT for Blackjack and Spanish 21.
Last edited by: Moraine on May 22, 2021
moses
moses
Joined: Sep 23, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 434
May 23rd, 2021 at 8:05:22 AM permalink
CV Data at qfit is a tool you might find useful and interesting.

Based on your strategy, I wouldnt feel comfortable without know how many 5s have been played. Somewhere during a loss, Id have a "wth just happened moment."

As a percentage player, you could employ a ten count and then compare the number of Aces vs 5's played/remain.

if your strategy where to include the 5 . BC is .809. PE is .413. IC is .679.

CV Data has an Efficiency calculator. That will answer all your BC, PE, IC questions and your various formula concerns.

No one is going to know without running a ton of different sims. Few will do it for themselves. Let alone someone else.
Moraine
Moraine
Joined: May 12, 2021
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 71
May 23rd, 2021 at 11:08:40 AM permalink
Quote: moses

CV Data at qfit is a tool you might find useful and interesting.

Based on your strategy, I wouldnt feel comfortable without know how many 5s have been played. Somewhere during a loss, Id have a "wth just happened moment."

As a percentage player, you could employ a ten count and then compare the number of Aces vs 5's played/remain.

if your strategy where to include the 5 . BC is .809. PE is .413. IC is .679.

CV Data has an Efficiency calculator. That will answer all your BC, PE, IC questions and your various formula concerns.

No one is going to know without running a ton of different sims. Few will do it for themselves. Let alone someone else.



1. Count-the-High, aka AceMT, is a listed Card Counting system in Encyclopedia of Blackjack (AceMT is the First Entry in the table of "Card Counting System Comparisons".)

2. AceMT's BC, PE and IC are 0.89, 0.49 and 0.84, respectively.

3. Count-the-High ignores all non-high cards (2 thru 9). Do you mean to have an ACE-5 side count? Or, a FIVE side count alone?

4. Don't see Count-the-High OR ANY SYSTEM needs to pick-out a card, DELIBERATELY IGNORED ALREADY, for special treatment. The computations of BC, PE and IC won't change in any event.

5. Some had tried to use CV Data, and ran into problems because, unless modified, the CURRENT CV Data CANNOT handle my way of computing the running count.

  • Jump to: