How to devise your own count?

[jack.jackson]

One last thing xen if you ever get bored could you run a sim of this unbalanced half count. If its possible of course? 0 1, 1, 1.5 2 1.5,000 -1.5
ace[2] Of course dont feel obligated.Thanxs.

Oh ya, this has a secondary count of A-2/7+1 which would actually look like this once we add the secondary count. In effect, giving it a balanced count for betting. 1, 1, 1.5, 2, 1.5, 1 (00) -1.5 -2

So xen, if your up to running the two different sim, i would love to see the results between the two. And i promise never to bother you again.

 

[Xenophon]

I like your enthusiasm JJ. One thing stuck out a couple posts ago. You turned 1000 dollars into a million dollars using AO2, on your kitchen table? AO2 is one of the hardest published counts, and not many people are wired properly to use that count accurately. So, if you are comfortable with AO2, you should just keep using it. If you're freaky quick at counting and keeping multiple side counts, then develop some side counts, and use those with AO2, since you already know it. You gotta get software to do this stuff because it is very time consuming.

I have never simmed any count with side counts, (besides ace) and never simmed an unbalanced count, except UBZ which was already set up for me on CVCX.

The first thing you have to do with your hypothesized unbalanced counts is calculate some indices, and I don't have software to develop unbalanced count indices. Maybe the free indice generator download on Arnolds' site works for unbalanced indices as well as balanced indices. If so, you could download it and look into it. I think you'd like it, called "Sam Cases" indice generator or something like that. It also has sections to develop side counts, and instantly calculates indices for the count itself, and side-counts you may be trying to figure out.

After saying all this, I have the UBZ booklet and it is very simple, and very strong. If you go to a level three unbalanced count like the ones you posted, similar to the BRH counts, they will sim marginally better with the right indices, and possibly only win about the same amount as UBZ in actual casino play.

 

[Xenophon]

It looks good, if you're willing to incorporate an ace sidecount. And if you are going to sidecount aces, might as well use HO2 or AO2. Or Uston APC for that matter.

Step 1: Using CVData, run a sim using Basic Strategy and your system tags. See at what count you end up with an advantage of about 2%. Don't forget about the sidecount.

Step 2: Using CVData and your max bet count you just discovered, do risk-averse index generation for all games you are planning on applying the count to, I-18 and Fab 4.

Step 3: Run a sim using a flat bet and the playing indices you just derived.

Step 4: Using the advantages at each count you just discovered, create a spread.

Step 5: Simulate some real-world games using your indices and spread. Compare your results to the same games using published and familiar systems like HO2, High-Low, RPC, etc. This is the painful part- you may discover that your new system does absolutely nothing better than something that already exists.

Also, re-read this, it's right on.

 

[zengrifter]

Im not exactly sure what you mean zen, by a no Ace betting count?

I meant that a betting side-count of As is unnecessary (Ace-reckoned count), only the 7s/8s side-count for playing enhancement.

Last and most importantly. Wouldnt it be true that the higher you raise your pe. the higher your be. will be. Dont they work as a team?

No, they are separate calculations. zg

 

[jack.jackson]

I meant that a betting side-count of As is unnecessary, only the 7s/8s side-count for playing enhancement.


No, they are separate calculations. zg

Okay capiche. I think i can put this in a nut shell. When playing MD instead of using a secondary count of A-4/7+2 for this count +2+2+3+4+3 000 -3 0
I can simply reckon this into the main count for +2+2+3+4+3+2 00 -3 -4 for a BC of 1 [#85] -the 9, +the A] Maybe SC 7/8. or just 8 or none.

But, if im playing single or double deck ill use the non reckoned count and SC A,7,(8) in hopes of a potential Pe. of .8 with mult-params of course.

And im pretty confident, i can simply add 1/3 higher indices of the A02. I.e 11vX -6 now its -9.

 

[zengrifter]

But, if im playing single or double deck ill use the non reckoned count and SC A,7,(8) in hopes of a potential Pe. of .8 with mult-params of course.

NO. keep the count at level-2, Ace-reckoned. No extra betting side-count. Count the 7s/8s strictly for play.

And im pretty confident, i can simply add 1/3 higher indices of the A02. I.e 11vX -6 now its -9.

Effective indices, once they are heavily rounded are fairly universal.

 

[jack.jackson]

NO. keep the count at level-2, Ace-reckoned. No extra betting side-count. Count the 7s/8s strictly for play.


Effective indices, once they are heavily rounded are fairly universal.

(Dead link: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...p?bn=bjf_forum)

Hey zen, just checked this count on this generator and these are the results.

0 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 0 -1 -2 (-2) It has bc. pc. ic. of .99 .69 .87

I did however have to ad .1 to the 4 (1.6) for betting & .2 to the 8 for playing but thats to insignificant to matter.


What should i Sc to make it even stronger. Maybe 8&A for play of hands and insur? Sc the nine would make it balanced and giving it a Ic .92

note:I changed the tens from -1.5 to -2

 

[jack.jackson]

(Dead link: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...p?bn=bjf_forum)

Hey zen, just checked this count on this generator and these are the results.

0 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 0 -1 -2 (-2) It has bc. pc. ic. of .99 .69 .87

I did however have to ad .1 to the 4 (1.6) for betting & .2 to the 8 for playing but thats to insignificant to matter.


What should i Sc to make it even stronger. Maybe 8&A for play of hands and insur? Sc the nine would make it balanced and giving it a Ic .92

note:I changed the tens from -1.5 to -2

Okay zen, just did some further testing and im definitely going to drop the nine.
Heres why! If i valued the 9 at a very low .31 i still had a BC of .99
Ie. 1, 1, 1.5, 2, 1.5, 1, 0 -.31 -2(-2) Anything below this my bc drops to .98 . Therefore by dropping it, the gain is trivial and think its safe to say my bc is still right at .99

Also if i input 1,1,1.5 2, 1.5 1, .19 -.19 -2 (0) I still had a pe. of .69 and ic. of .92 I think its safe to say that .19 for 8, and -.19 will pretty much offset eachother. Once i valued them both at zero my pe. just dropped to .68. But naturally my insurance stayed at .92.

Now that ive said that let me say this. By valueing the 8 and 9 at 0 .

1,1,1.5,2,1.5,1 (0,0) -2(2) Not only is the count now balanced. I would have to say that its very,very,very, close, If NOT, equal to a bc. pe. and ic. of .99 .69 .92 then ill SC 8&A's for playing and insurance decisions! In effect giving me this .99 .70+ .94+ blowing away A02.

 

[jack.jackson]

But if i value the nine in the main count -.5 it easily pushes out .99+ .69+ .90+.

 

[Sonny]

What should i Sc to make it even stronger. Maybe 8&A for play of hands and insur? Sc the nine would make it balanced and giving it a Ic .92

Just don’t get carried away. Remember, for each side count that you use you will need to generate (and memorize!) a complete set of multi-parameter index adjustments. For example, using two side counts for playing purposes means that you have to learn 3 indices for each play (the main index number plus an adjustment for each side count). Suddenly the Illustrious 18 have become the Illustrious 54! That’s a lot of work for such a tiny gain at the tables. And any small gain that you get will probably be overshadowed by the excruciatingly slow speed of play.

-Sonny-

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Why is the six undervalued in this count and only given a tag of +1 instead of plus +2?

your probably right, but fyi the 5 is more important than the 6 as far as "i hope it gets the eff out of the shoe".. if your wondering why, in simple terms, a dealer makes a pat out of any stiff with a 5

 

[EyeHeartHalves]

very creative

I can think of one good reason as to why you should try to make your own system. The process will force you to think analytically about the game. And then you'll be forced towards a conclusion. However, you do know that the conclusion will be that you're wrong, right?

I don't mean to poke fun. I tried the same exact idea for a few days. In fact, that's how I settled on a count system. And thanks for trying to invent a new one for us but a "single parameter level three balanced count" works just fine for me.

Oh yeah, (something positive...) if you are really interested in this, then you definetely should buy "The Theory of Blackjack" (with the elephant on the cover) and/or find some good bj software that lets you make custom systems and will help you with simulations and strategy point decisions.

C ya!