Believe it or Not, AceMT by Counting the HIgh. . .
Poll
| No votes (0%) | |||
 | 1 vote (14.28%) | ||
| | 4 votes (57.14%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 4 votes (57.14%) |
7 members have voted
1. Attains 99.1% of Hi-Lo’s total BC+ PE + IC,
2. Can reach 100 % perfect IC with an added Ace Side Count, and beat Hi-Lo's toal BC+PE+IC hands down,
3. Can turn any Hi-Lo deviation index into the corresponding AceMT deviation index in the blink of an eye.
4. Counts Blackjack and Spanish 21 the same way.
Quote: MoraineBelieve it or Not, AceMT, by Counting the High Cards -- A, K, Q, J, and Ten --
1. Attains 99.1% of Hi-Lo’s total BC+ PE + IC,
2. Can reach 100 % perfect IC with an added Ace Side Count, and beat Hi-Lo's toal BC+PE+IC hands down,
3. Can turn any Hi-Lo deviation index into the corresponding AceMT deviation index in the blink of an eye.
4. Counts Blackjack and Spanish 21 the same way.
I thought the point of this system was that Hi-Lo was too laborious yet now you are talking about adding a side count to it.
Some BJ sites are more tolerant of nonsense than others...
Quote: GManNot satisfied with being barred on blackjackinfo.com, the poster keeps spreading is shit all over the internet.
Some BJ sites are more tolerant of nonsense than others...
1. What had happened and what every one had said in that whatchamacallit forum may be UNFIT TO PRINT/READ, but if still interested, anyone can go visit that forum to see the truth.
2. ALERT: Since 5/13/2021 (?), the contents of the recorded posts in that forum might have been altered. (There were talks to delete a recorded thread of that forum.)
Quote: sabreNope, I don't believe it. Post your system and analysis.
There were many discussions in the May 17, 2021 thread/thread: "Count the High, Not the Low. Will it Work?" If you have a specific question relating to any aspect of AceMT, I will answer to the best of my ability either here or there. Thanks.
Quote: MoraineThere were many discussions in the May 17, 2021 thread/thread: "Count the High, Not the Low. Will it Work?" If you have a specific question relating to any aspect of AceMT, I will answer to the best of my ability either here or there. Thanks.
Nope, I'm not interested in digging through another thread. Describe your count system here succinctly.
Tags
RC to TC conversion
When do you bet more
When do you take insurance
For now don't worry about any other index plays.
For example, if you asked me to describe a simple HiLo system I'd say
A,K,Q,J,T = -1
2,3,4,5,6 = +1
TC = RC/remaining decks (half deck estimates)
Breakeven around TC +1 (depending on rules) increasing roughly .5% per TC
Take insurance at TC +3 or greater
You should be able to roughly describe AceMT in this fashion.
Quote: sabreSliced beer is more plausible than the claims made by the OP. 100% IC while ignoring half the cards coming out is a fantastic claim.
1. Thorp's Ten Count, by counting 4 cards (K, Q, J and Ten), attains 100% IC. It really isn't out of the realm of possibility that AceMT, by counting Ace, K, Q, J and Ten -- with an added (more correctly put a MINUS) Ace Side Count -- can also attain 100% IC.
2. Ace + K + Q + J + Ten - Ace = K + Q + J + Ten = Thorp's Ten Count.
3. "Sliced Beer" may also become "plausible" if one thinks outside the box.
Quote: sabreNope, I'm not interested in digging through another thread. Describe your count system here succinctly.
Tags
RC to TC conversion
When do you bet more
When do you take insurance
For now don't worry about any other index plays.
For example, if you asked me to describe a simple HiLo system I'd say
A,K,Q,J,T = -1
2,3,4,5,6 = +1
TC = RC/remaining decks (half deck estimates)
Breakeven around TC +1 (depending on rules) increasing roughly .5% per TC
Take insurance at TC +3 or greater
You should be able to roughly describe AceMT in this fashion.
LOL, good luck in getting any substantial information Sabre!
Quote: HunterhillI thought the point of this system was that Hi-Lo was too laborious yet now you are talking about adding a side count to it.
1. AceMT does not need the added Ace Side Count, but if one wants 100% IC, AceMT has a simpler way than Hi-Lo to deliver it.
2. To my knowledge, if a Hi-Lo user wants 100% IC, two counting team members are needed: One using Hi-Lo for the main Blackjack bet and the other using Ten Count -- a -9, +4 (?) point value system -- for the SIDE INSURANCE BET, since no card counter, save a genius, can handle Hi-Lo plus Ten Count alone.
3. With AceMT, counting the high only plus the Ace Side Count, isn't really too difficult for a SOLO card counting practitioner, especially for one or two-deck blackjack.
Quote: sabreDescribe your count system here succinctly.
A, K, Q, J, and Ten: -1 each.
2 thru 9: ZERO each.
Quote: sabre
In the nut shell, AceMT, aka Count the High, assigns:
A, K, Q, J, and Ten: -1 each.
2 thru 9: ZERO each.
Every thing else in AceMT comes out of that special basic point value assignment.
Quote: Moraine1. Thorp's Ten Count, by counting 4 cards (K, Q, J and Ten), attains 100% IC. It really isn't out of the realm of possibility that, by counting Ace, K, Q, J and Ten -- with an added (more correctly put a MINUS) Ace Side Count -- AceMT can also attain 100% IC.
2. Ace + K + Q + J + Ten - Ace = K + Q + J + Ten = Thorp's Ten Count.
3. "Sliced Beer" may also become "plausible" if one thinks outside the box.
This is incorrect. To achieve 100% IC insurance correlation, you need to use the 10 Count
A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = +4
10, Jack, Queen, King = -9
100% IC just means you are counting paint . . .Quote: sabreSliced beer is more plausible than the claims made by the OP. 100% IC while ignoring half the cards coming out is a fantastic claim.
Quote: billryanTwenty years ago, someone would have introduced chaos theory into the discussion.
Old Application of Chaos Theory: A Butterfly flopping the wings in Texas caused a hurricane in Pacific Ocean.
New Application of Chaos Theory: An inebriated card counter's doodling revealed the Emperor's New Cloths into blackjack.
Quote: Moraine
Every thing else in AceMT comes out of that special basic point value assignment.
DESCRIBE "EVERY THING ELSE" SUCCINTLY.
Quote: acesideThis is incorrect. To achieve 100% IC insurance correlation, you need to use the 10 Count
A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 = +4
10, Jack, Queen, King = -9
aceside,
A much easier running count version of the Insurance Count is as follows:
1. Begin with an Initial Running Count (IRC) equal to -4*(number of decks), so -4 for single deck, -24 for 6D, etc.
2. Count all X's (that's 10's and Faces) as -2, and all non-X's as +1.
3. When the RC>0, the remaining pack is more than one-third X's, so Insurance is +EV.
4. When the RC=0, the remaining pack is exactly one-third X's, so Insurance is an even-money (EV=0) bet.
5. When the RC<0, the remaining pack is less than one-third X's, so Insurance is -EV.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Quote: sabreNope, I'm not interested in digging through another thread. Describe your count system here succinctly.
Tags
RC to TC conversion
When do you bet more
When do you take insurance
For now don't worry about any other index plays.
For example, if you asked me to describe a simple HiLo system I'd say
A,K,Q,J,T = -1
2,3,4,5,6 = +1
TC = RC/remaining decks (half deck estimates)
Breakeven around TC +1 (depending on rules) increasing roughly .5% per TC
Take insurance at TC +3 or greater
You should be able to roughly describe AceMT in this fashion.
1. AceMT Running Count in BLACKJACK = Number of Decks in the DISCARD TRAY x 20 - Number of High Cards ACTUALLY Discarded
2. Ace True Count = AceMT Running Count / Number of Decks STILL IN THE SHOE
3. Every increment of ONE AceMT True Count approximates +0.86% EV in BLACKJACK.
4. When AceMT True Count is +1 or Higher one can start betting more than the table minimum for the most commonly seen S17 or H17 3-to-2 blackjack.
5. Take Insurance at AceMT +2 True Count.
Quote: DogHandaceside,
A much easier running count version of the Insurance Count is as follows:
1. Begin with an Initial Running Count (IRC) equal to -4*(number of decks), so -4 for single deck, -24 for 6D, etc.
2. Count all X's (that's 10's and Faces) as -2, and all non-X's as +1.
3. When the RC>0, the remaining pack is more than one-third X's, so Insurance is +EV.
4. When the RC=0, the remaining pack is exactly one-third X's, so Insurance is an even-money (EV=0) bet.
5. When the RC<0, the remaining pack is less than one-third X's, so Insurance is -EV.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
You are right. This is another way to achieve 100% IC insurance correlation.
Quote: Moraine1. AceMT Running Count in BLACKJACK = Number of Decks in the DISCARD TRAY x 20 - Number of High Cards ACTUALLY Discarded
2. Ace True Count = AceMT Running Count / Number of Decks STILL IN THE SHOE
3. Every increment of ONE AceMT True Count approximates +0.86% EV in BLACKJACK.
4. When AceMT True Count is +1 or Higher one can start betting more than the table minimum for the most commonly seen S17 or H17 3-to-2 blackjack.
5. Take Insurance at AceMT +2 True Count.
OK. I will acknowledge that you have described a counting system that can actually be used and simulated. This is something JSTAT hasn't done in 50,000 posts so I give you credit for that.
I'm not going to simulate or use this count. The fact that it starts with a 3 digit running count and still needs true count conversion FOR ME immediately throws any claim of being easier to use than Hi-Lo right out the window. Maybe others would find only ever dealing with positive numbers easier than HiLo if they're constantly making mistakes keeping an accurate count when the RC is fluctuation between positive and negative.
I don't see how any count can achieve a 100% IC without tracking every single card. Nobody's deck estimation is that good.
Quote: sabreOK. I will acknowledge that you have described a counting system that can actually be used and simulated. This is something JSTAT hasn't done in 50,000 posts so I give you credit for that.
I'm not going to simulate or use this count. The fact that it starts with a 3 digit running count and still needs true count conversion FOR ME immediately throws any claim of being easier to use than Hi-Lo right out the window. Maybe others would find only ever dealing with positive numbers easier than HiLo if they're constantly making mistakes keeping an accurate count when the RC is fluctuation between positive and negative.
I don't see how any count can achieve a 100% IC without tracking every single card. Nobody's deck estimation is that good.
1. Thanks for all your comments.
2. AceMT's running counts run like 12345.... in one direction only. Even with NO SPECIAL RUNNING COUNT TECHNIQUE trainings, a counter may still be able to count 123 FASTER IN HEAD than any dealer can possibly deal. Also for 1, 2 or 4 decks, running counts have two digits only, if counting above 100 somehow presents a problem.
3. Simulation with existing known programs (without modifications) may run into difficulties.
4. Regarding the possible accuracy of deck estimations, the same should also be applicable to the true counts of Hi-Lo or other balanced systems, but counters use their BEST ESTIMATE to decide whether or not to deviate or to vary bets accordingly.
Draw lines in the sand and the chicken will stair at it until the farmer chops their head off.
Quote: unJon100% IC just means you are counting paint . . .
😄🖒 Well said.
Quote: sabreOK. I will acknowledge that you have described a counting system that can actually be used and simulated. This is something JSTAT hasn't done in 50,000 posts so I give you credit for that.
I'm not going to simulate or use this count. The fact that it starts with a 3 digit running count and still needs true count conversion FOR ME immediately throws any claim of being easier to use than Hi-Lo right out the window. Maybe others would find only ever dealing with positive numbers easier than HiLo if they're constantly making mistakes keeping an accurate count when the RC is fluctuation between positive and negative.
I don't see how any count can achieve a 100% IC without tracking every single card. Nobody's deck estimation is that good.
Ahem. Two words. Deck Composition.
C'mon man. Something you already know. No?
Total number of votes: 5
1. Yes, Numbers Don't Lie -- 0 votes
2. No, No, No, Totally Delusional - 0 votes
3. Fat Chance, Dream on - 2 votes or 40%
4. A Broken Clock is Always Right Twice a Day - 0 votes
5. @//!~^#&> Unfit to Print - 3 votes or 60%
MY TAKES:
1. NO ONE HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE has disproved AceMT's claim that its BC+IC+BC attains 99.1% Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC sum total, in spite of the fact that it only counts 50% of the cards counted by Hi-Lo.
2. Before AceMT, card counters have only two Level 2 (or higher?) systems to attain 100% IC for the Insurance Side Bet -- the "#1 top dog of all deviation plays" -- via Ten Count or Archer count as elucidated by DogHand's reply to aceside. Thanks to both, but commentators seemed to be surprised by the claim that AceMT plus the Ace Side Count is an alternate route to the "100% IC Never Never Land (?)."
3. NO DISCUSSIONS YET on AceMT's claim that it can turn "any Hi-Lo deviation index into the corresponding AceMT deviation index in the blink of an eye."
QUESTIONS: How could it possibly be true? Magic? 100% Self-Delusional? A Scam?
Please Grace this Thread and Poll by Giving Your Further Thoughts and Comments. And Please also vote if you haven't done so.
Much ado about nothingQuote: MoraineVOTE TALLY AS OF 5/29/201 2:44 pm Las Vegas Time:
Total number of votes: 5
1. Yes, Numbers Don't Lie -- 0 votes
2. No, No, No, Totally Delusional - 0 votes
3. Fat Chance, Dream on - 2 votes or 40%
4. A Broken Clock is Always Right Twice a Day - 0 votes
5. @//!~^#&> Unfit to Print - 3 votes or 60%
MY TAKES:
1. NO ONE HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE has disproved AceMT's claim that its BC+IC+BC attains 99.1% Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC sum total, in spite of the fact that it only counts 50% of the cards counted by Hi-Lo.
2. Before AceMT, card counters have only two Level 2 (or higher?) systems to attain 100% IC for the Insurance Side Bet -- the "#1 top dog of all deviation plays" -- via Ten Count or Archer count as elucidated by DogHand's reply to aceside. Thanks to both, but commentators seemed to be surprised by the claim that AceMT plus the Ace Side Count is an alternate route to the "100% IC Never Never Land (?)."
3. NO DISCUSSIONS YET on AceMT's claim that it can turn "any Hi-Lo deviation index into the corresponding AceMT deviation index in the blink of an eye."
QUESTIONS: How could it possibly be true? Magic? 100% Self-Delusional? A Scam?
Please Grace this Thread and Poll by Giving Your Further Thoughts and Comments. And Please also vote if you haven't done so.
Not sure if there is another system that can boast to match 100, 200 , 300 or AS MANY AS deviation indices as anyone can find for Hi-Lo in the blink of an eye.
Yet this is what AceMT is claiming. If it is true -- not a scam, not a fraud, not too good to be true -- Thump Up, Congratulate and Cheeeers !!!
Decree from the Royal Czar of Card Counting Indices:
Any Card Counter who claims to know more than 18 Illustrious SELF-EXPOSING Indices or 4 Fabulous Surrendering Wimps Has Committed the Criminal Offense of Slandering by Insinuation that the Czar in His Royal Highness New Cloths as Emperor with No Cloths, which Offense Shall be Punishable by Public Flogging and/or Exile to Gulags where No Casino will Ever be Built.
This Decree Shall be Continuously In Effect until Rescinded by Czar.
Decree from the Royal Czar of Card Counting Indices:
Any Card Counter who claims to know more than 18 Illustrious SELF-EXPOSING Indices or 4 Fabulous Surrendering Wimps Has Committed the Criminal Offense of Slandering by Insinuation that the Czar in His Royal Highness New Cloths as Emperor with No Cloths, which Offense Shall be Punishable by Public Flogging and/or Exile to Gulags where No Casino will Ever Be Built.
This Decree Shall be Continuously In Effect until Rescinded by Czar.
Quote: GManYou should see a doctor.
Now that he only has to count half the cards, he has all this extra time on his hands.
Quote: HunterhillMuch ado about nothing
Should have used the beautiful line "Much ado about nothing" to describe Hi-Lo's endless + / -, up-and-down RUNNING COUNT ADJUSTMENTS, and the required weeks or months of practicing how to "Hi-Lo'ing" the right way -- some have even spent a small fortune to learn the SPECIAL Hi-Lo'ing running count tallying technique from gurus -- before becoming "COMBAT READY" in CASINO,
WHEN OTHERS could get 99.1% of Hi-Lo's expected performance already by counting 123456 IN HEAD ALONE -- Tell me that I need to go to a special school to learn counting 12345? GIVE ME A BREAK! Me Ain't Smart, but Ain't that Dumb Either.
Quote: MoraineShould have used the beautiful line "Much ado about nothing" to describe Hi-Lo's endless + / -, up-and-down RUNNING COUNT ADJUSTMENTS, and the required weeks or months of practicing how to "Hi-Lo'ing" the right way -- some have even spent a small fortune to learn the SPECIAL Hi-Lo'ing running count tallying technique from gurus -- before becoming "COMBAT READY" in CASINO,
WHEN OTHERS could get 99.1% of Hi-Lo's expected performance already by counting 123456 IN HEAD ALONE -- Tell me that I need to go to a special school to learn counting 12345? GIVE ME A BREAK! Me Ain't Smart, but Ain't that Dumb Either.
Simply said: If Hi-Lo us too much for you, you're not made for advantage play. Your too weak between the ears....
Quote: GManSimply said: If Hi-Lo us too much for you, you're not made for advantage play. Your too weak between the ears....
AceMT vs. Hi-lo = Counting 5 High Cards Only vs. Counting 10 Cards, both High and Low
AceMT vs. Ho-Lo = Can break in 61.5% of the time while card counting vs. Can break only in 23% of the time while card counting.
Yet the stand alone AceMT already attains 99.1% of Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC, and can beat Hi-Lo by 7.2% if Ace Side Count is added.
But some Hi-Lo loyalists insist AceMT users "too weak between the ears". Geees, guys saying that must be "Too Full of It between the Ears", aka CBTES (Constipation between the Ears Syndrome)
Get a Life! That is why you go to casino. COUNT CARDS, HAVE FUN, AND WIN IT ALL -- AT THE SAME TIME..
PS: What is the color of Emperor's New Cloths today???
You are a keen advocate of the AceMT count. I get that.
Do I discern that you have a monetary interest in promoting it? Just asking, as if you are, say selling a book or course based on it, you really must divulge that interest.
If not, then carry on.... Or maybe give up on the lost causes here and go take the casinos down.
Thanks.
Quote: OnceDearSo, Moraine....
You are a keen advocate of the AceMT count. I get that.
Do I discern that you have a monetary interest in promoting it? Just asking, as if you are, say selling a book or course based on it, you really must divulge that interest.
If not, then carry on.... Or maybe give up on the lost causes here and go take the casinos down.
Thanks.
100% Disclosure of Moraine's "monetary interest" and other interest in AceMT:
1. Moraine is the author of a book on AceMT. (Its full name will be provided ONLY when the disclosure is deemed appropriate.)
2. Moraine is not selling any course relating to AceMT or any other card counting systems. (Other than giving occasional advice at blackjack or Spanish 21 tables in casinos, Moraine has never been an instructor on Blackjack or Spanish 21 in any capacity.)
3. The idea of AceMT (or counting the high only) germinated in the summer of 1968. It had remained a PRIVATE system till February 2021. Moraine wrote the book on AceMT because Moraine would like to record and share his special knowledge and experience with others in the card counting communities, and to present the unknown "invention" for public evaluation/criticism. (Without the book, AceMT would destine to become a "lost art" soon, and no one would have heard of the idea of counting-the-high-only, let alone using it in casinos.)
4. On the level of personal VANITY at least, Moraine will like to see AceMT becomes a recognized card counting system and used by many in casinos.
5. Since Moraine's book's publication in February 2021, other than the criticisms/evaluations that Moraine has received in this and other forums, the only concrete result from making AceMT public is that it has become a listed card counting system in Encyclopedia of Blackjack on May 22, 2021. (Moraine started using the name of AceMT in conjunction with Count-the-High name in this forum after it had become a listed system in Encyclopedia of Blackjack.)
Moraine
Seems like a pretty weasly way to promote your stuff.
Quote: billryanSo you published a book in February and then came on this forum in May, posing as someone looking for a better way to count since you had trouble remembering more than five things at once.?
Seems like a pretty weasly way to promote your stuff.
Frankly, based on the receptions I had received elsewhere (before participating in this forum), I knew I must start the discussion ONLY TANGENTIALLY AND DIPLOMATICALLY. Or, words UNFIT TO PRINT OR TO BE REPEATED HERE COULD FLY IMMEDIATELY, and no possible objective discussions thereafter.
Quote: moses🤔 Count miscalculated cards or not at all. Some choice.
PLEASE ELABORATE.
I know your have Single-Deck Games. But Wise Men Will Not Touch Them Even With a 10-Foot Pole.
Remember 6-to-5 is all you got. IF you want anything more . . .
Quote: MorainePLEASE ELABORATE.
I know your have Single-Deck Games. But Wise Men Will Not Touch Them Even With a 10-Foot Pole.
Remember 6-to-5 is all you got. IF you want anything more . . .
I wouldnt touch a 6/5 game or a game with less than 6 rounds straight up.
Deck composition. A deck that is rich in 10,A may also be rich in 2-5. If you dont count 'em you won't know.
HiLo is giving the 2 the same tag as the 5? C'mon maan.
Griffin started his EoR theory from a single deck.
Shoes belong on your feet.😉
Moraine:
"I know your have a Single-Deck Game. Wise Men Will Not Touch it With a 10-Foot Pole.
Remember 6-to-5 is all you get. If you want to have something more
They sure will amaze you with the show you love.
Here comes the MAGIC OF SLEIGHT OF HAND."
Quote: Moraine6-to-5, 6 round straight up, NO GOOD EITHER.
Moraine:
"I know your have a Single-Deck Game. Wise Men Will Not Touch it With a 10-Foot Pole.
Remember 6-to-5 is all you get. If you want to have something more
They sure will amaze you with the show you love.
Here comes the MAGIC OF SLEIGHT OF HAND."
He said he’s playing 3:2 games. Are you reading what he posts?
Quote: unJonHe said he’s playing 3:2 games. Are you reading what he posts?
He did not mention 3-to-2 either.
I cannot remember when was the last time I saw a SINGLE-DECK 3-TO-2 blackjack. If there still is single-deck 3-to-2 blackjack with common rules, NO CARD COUNTING IS NEEDED. It can be beat with COMPOSITIONAL BASIC STRATEGY.
