Analysis of Lucky Ladies

[21forme]

If you can't remember the number from the other thread, try this:

The TC = +4 at the pivot point with any number of cards remaining. TC = +7 when your RC is 3x the number of decks remaining.

For example, I use an IRC of -7 for 8D. The PP is +25. Suppose there are 3 decks remaining. Then, 3x3 = 9, or RC = +34 for TC = +7. With 2D remaining, 2x3 = 6, or an RC of +31 for TC = +7.

 

[Deathclutch]

----------------------------------
For DD...

A-9 (there are 72 of these cards) x +1 = +72
T-K (except QH, there are 30 of these cards) x -2 = -60
First QH = -10
Second QH = -2

(+72) + (-60) + (-10) + (-2) = 0.


---------------------------------
For 6D, use this BALANCED count:

A-9 = +1
T-K = -2
QH = -6
---------------------------------

Is there any unbalanced counts for a 6 Deck that anyone knows of?

 

[rrwoods]

For 6D, use this BALANCED count:

A-9 = +1
T-K = -2
QH = -6

I'm at least a little surprised at this; Ace and Nine at plus? Aren't those good cards for us for this bet?

Also very surprised at the massive minus on the queen of hearts; the payout is huge but how often does it really happen?

 

[zengrifter]

I'm at least a little surprised at this; Ace and Nine at plus? Aren't those good cards for us for this bet?

They make 20 together. but really the bet is about 10-card density.

Also very surprised at the massive minus on the queen of hearts; the payout is huge but how often does it really happen?

Seldom, but the jackpot is needed to make it a +EV bet. zg

 

[rrwoods]

They make 20.

Right -- Why are they plus then? The tens are minus. EDIT: I see your edit

Seldom, but the jackpot is needed to make it a +EV bet. zg

Disappointing.

 

[BJgenius007]

I'm at least a little surprised at this; Ace and Nine at plus? Aren't those good cards for us for this bet?

Also very surprised at the massive minus on the queen of hearts; the payout is huge but how often does it really happen?

To make it a balanced count, I think it should be

Qh -6
Q(other) -2
10, J, K -2
A -1
9 -1

3,4,5,6 +2
2,7,8 +1

Alternative:

2,3,4,5,6 +2
7 +1

 

[Sharky]

not sure about the alt...can't run a sim, but doesn't look right..don't like 7=-1, 8 neut, 9= -1

wouldn't it be more prudent to have 2 +1, and 7 neut?

 

[BJgenius007]

not sure about the alt...can't run a sim, but doesn't look right..don't like 7=-1, 8 neut, 9= -1

wouldn't it be more prudent to have 2 +1, and 7 neut?

Sorry for the typo.

Also I have some explanation to do: to balance out the counting, it should be 11 on both plus and minus side.

The weight of queen is -3
because (-6-2-2-2)/4 = -3

On the minus side:
10, J, K: -2
Q: -3
9, A: -1
That makes -11.

If you choose the alternative, on the plus side:
2, 3, 4, 5, 6: +2
7 : +1
8: 0
That makes +11.

Ace and nine makes 20 and you won 4x of your original side bet, so it should be on the minus side like J,Q,K and 10.

 

[aslan]

it's deck dependent, so convert it to a true count and bet at tc > +7.

This chart should help KO users. Do all agree that TC +7 is the optimal place to begin betting the LL? Should the bet be increased as EV increases, or is it better to just bet max (or whatever your bankroll can stand) at +7?

View attachment 7320

 

[southAP]

I know this is an old post, but on LL is the playable TC stay the same regardless of decks? I've tried looking around for it but it seems all the articles on it are just simed for 6 Decks or higher.

 

[Freightman]

Thanks, have you ever hit QQh w/ BJ?

Yes, and didn't bet it with a crappy super negative count

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I know this is an old post, but on LL is the playable TC stay the same regardless of decks? I've tried looking around for it but it seems all the articles on it are just simed for 6 Decks or higher.

No, it actually works at a slightly lower TC with more decks, because more decks makes it easier to get a perfect match. Especially so with the LL10 paytable because the 25:1 is a significant part of your return.

 

[southAP]

Oh ok I get what you're saying AM. So with the 4 deck LL game should I wait until about another TC higher for the count to be effective?

 

[zengrifter]

Oh ok I get what you're saying AM. So with the 4 deck LL game should I wait until about another TC higher for the count to be effective?

Not necessary. zg

 

[tthree]

The change rate of advantage with TC tends to quite large for side bets. If you are going to make a mistake in use of the index you want it to be using one that is to high. The lower TC has a higher frequency of occurrence and will have a significant disadvantage. This will give back a big chunk of gain as the bet actually becomes profitable. Basically if you use an index of 7 when it should be 8 you give back all your advantage gained until well above TC +9. Using an index of 8 would be most profitable but using an index of 9 would be more profitable than 7 due to the much higher frequency of TC of 7 compared to TC 8 or TC 9.

 

[southAP]

The change rate of advantage with TC tends to quite large for side bets. If you are going to make a mistake in use of the index you want it to be using one that is to high. The lower TC has a higher frequency of occurrence and will have a significant disadvantage. This will give back a big chunk of gain as the bet actually becomes profitable. Basically if you use an index of 7 when it should be 8 you give back all your advantage gained until well above TC +9. Using an index of 8 would be most profitable but using an index of 9 would be more profitable than 7 due to the much higher frequency of TC of 7 compared to TC 8 or TC 9.

So I take it these side bets are based on frequency rather than anything else?

 

[tthree]

Cost of using a positive index before it is reached (is advantageous)

I have explained this a few times. Look at a TC frequency distribution chart. Most of it is at 0. As your TC increases by one the frequency that you have that count goes down. Once you are at an advantage or very shortly after the sum of all higher TCs' frequencies is smaller than the the frequency of that TC. This tremendous bias for higher frequencies at lower positive counts as opposed to higher positive count with their much lower frequencies cause the mistake of generously using a positive index (using it before it becomes profitable) all the time extremely costly. Assuming linear gain the cost from TC +7 to +8 rather than proper +8 is far greater than the gain from TC +8 to +9 due to the much greater frequency of TC +7 to +8. The gain/hand from TC +9 to +10 is greater but the frequency is tiny by comparison and still might not make up the rest of the cost from TC +7 to +8. The same mistake at negative TC costs minimally.

 

[zengrifter]

Assuming linear gain the cost from TC +7 to +8 rather than proper +8 is far greater than the gain from TC +8 to +9 due to the much greater frequency of TC +7 to +8. The gain/hand from TC +9 to +10 is greater but the frequency is tiny by comparison and still might not make up the rest of the cost from TC +7 to +8. The same mistake at negative TC costs minimally.

The change in LLs bet departure is negligible from 2D to 8D, even with the inferior 9-1 pay scheme. Mostly I would be a little more circumspect at 2D with the 9-1 version. zg

 

[tthree]

The change in LLs bet departure is negligible from 2D to 8D, even with the inferior 9-1 pay scheme. Mostly I would be a little more circumspect at 2D with the 9-1 version. zg

What does that have to do with true count frequencies. If I am really bad at explaining what I am trying to say, will someone who understands it translate. It is a very important mistake to avoid because it is so costly. I have tried to explain this in many threads but I get the impression people don't understand what I am talking about.

 

[aslan]

I have explained this a few times. Look at a TC frequency distribution chart. Most of it is at 0. As your TC increases by one the frequency that you have that count goes down. Once you are at an advantage or very shortly after the sum of all higher TCs' frequencies is smaller than the the frequency of that TC. This tremendous bias for higher frequencies at lower positive counts as opposed to higher positive count with their much lower frequencies cause the mistake of generously using a positive index (using it before it becomes profitable) all the time extremely costly. Assuming linear gain the cost from TC +7 to +8 rather than proper +8 is far greater than the gain from TC +8 to +9 due to the much greater frequency of TC +7 to +8. The gain/hand from TC +9 to +10 is greater but the frequency is tiny by comparison and still might not make up the rest of the cost from TC +7 to +8. The same mistake at negative TC costs minimally.

Are you saying that people tend to minimize the difference between betting the LL at +7 versus +8, while the real advantage is at +8 and higher, so that APs waste their money making this wager too early not realizing the difference? If that is not it, I am confused.