Automatic Monkey
Banned
A=0
2=+1
3=+1
4=+2
5=+2
6=+2
7=0
8=0
9=0
X=-2
Thanks for any info.
2=+1
3=+1
4=+2
5=+2
6=+2
7=0
8=0
9=0
X=-2
Thanks for any info.
Has this count been studied yet?
- Thread starter Automatic Monkey
- Start date
phantom007
Well-Known Member
Don't know, probably so......
I snooped around and according to www.bjstats.com (Archive copy), you could calculate Bet/Play/Ins. #'s on CVData. Ramps and comparisons can be calculated with CVCX.
If you have these, you can run your numbers, and let us know.
I have these, but am working on the road (posting and getting paid from my employer while using company's computer...GRIN), home Sun. night, and leave out Monday for 10-day vacation. Doubt I will have time to help. Sorry.
Otherwise, check "World's Greatest BJ Book". It has the best "hardcopy" comparison of common BJ counting systems (though I believe it was published way before KO), that I have seen. Anyhow, info. you seek might be in there.
phantom007.
I snooped around and according to www.bjstats.com (Archive copy), you could calculate Bet/Play/Ins. #'s on CVData. Ramps and comparisons can be calculated with CVCX.
If you have these, you can run your numbers, and let us know.
I have these, but am working on the road (posting and getting paid from my employer while using company's computer...GRIN), home Sun. night, and leave out Monday for 10-day vacation. Doubt I will have time to help. Sorry.
Otherwise, check "World's Greatest BJ Book". It has the best "hardcopy" comparison of common BJ counting systems (though I believe it was published way before KO), that I have seen. Anyhow, info. you seek might be in there.
phantom007.
Abraham de Moivre
Well-Known Member
An Immediate Improvement
Instead of counting the 2 as +1, count it as 0 and count the 7 as +1
That would give you a big improvement on PE, which this count should be very good at. I assume you would some how side count the Ace for reasonable BE also.
Instead of counting the 2 as +1, count it as 0 and count the 7 as +1
That would give you a big improvement on PE, which this count should be very good at. I assume you would some how side count the Ace for reasonable BE also.
Stealth Bomber
Well-Known Member
The "A. M." count strategy, Hmmm
Just need now to add in a side C of aces.
Just need now to add in a side C of aces.
Abraham de Moivre
Well-Known Member
Some Numbers
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
- - - - - - - - -- -
1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2 0 PE .63 BE .90
0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 0 PE .66 BE .89
Incorporation of an Ace side count would add around .05 to the BE for the above counts.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
- - - - - - - - -- -
1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2 0 PE .63 BE .90
0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 0 PE .66 BE .89
Incorporation of an Ace side count would add around .05 to the BE for the above counts.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Interesting
This is what I was trying to do- to come up with a count that is almost as powerful as Hi-Opt II and easier to use.
Snyder's 100 is also very interesting. He comes out with his Zen count, slightly more powerful than HO2 given the BC and PE. But HO2 has a higher IC, so the two systems are probably close to equal, with one surpassing another as a function of spread.
So it would seem the determination of which is the better count depends on a few conditions (aside from simplicity, let's assume you're capable of using any count correctly); size of the spread first, and secondly, rules available. Having DOA, DAS, and LSR will increase the number of useful playing indexes and tend to make PE more significant.
This is what I was trying to do- to come up with a count that is almost as powerful as Hi-Opt II and easier to use.
Snyder's 100 is also very interesting. He comes out with his Zen count, slightly more powerful than HO2 given the BC and PE. But HO2 has a higher IC, so the two systems are probably close to equal, with one surpassing another as a function of spread.
So it would seem the determination of which is the better count depends on a few conditions (aside from simplicity, let's assume you're capable of using any count correctly); size of the spread first, and secondly, rules available. Having DOA, DAS, and LSR will increase the number of useful playing indexes and tend to make PE more significant.
HO2 is still better
The BC for 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2 with an ace side count is .971 while the PE is .632.
The BC for 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 with an ace side count is .658 while the PE
is .658
HO2 is better in both regards with a BC of .982 and a PE of .668. I don't see why these counts are any easier to count than HO2.
My data is obtained from the BC/PE/IC count analyser which can be downloaded from bjmath.com.
For those wishing to use a level 2 count with an ace side count for betting I suggest HO2 or Omega 2. Omega 2 has better slightly better BC and PE but, partly due to poorer IC (due to counting the 9 as negative) Omega 2 is fares slightly worse than HO2 in most sims.
..slag..
The BC for 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2 with an ace side count is .971 while the PE is .632.
The BC for 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 with an ace side count is .658 while the PE
is .658
HO2 is better in both regards with a BC of .982 and a PE of .668. I don't see why these counts are any easier to count than HO2.
My data is obtained from the BC/PE/IC count analyser which can be downloaded from bjmath.com.
For those wishing to use a level 2 count with an ace side count for betting I suggest HO2 or Omega 2. Omega 2 has better slightly better BC and PE but, partly due to poorer IC (due to counting the 9 as negative) Omega 2 is fares slightly worse than HO2 in most sims.
..slag..