## Poll

No votes (0%) | |||

1 vote (14.28%) | |||

4 votes (57.14%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

4 votes (57.14%) |

**7 members have voted**

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.