At the level he is attacking this, I would have to agree. But I still don't understand his reluctance to put his theories, and that is what they are, to the sim test. That will get him so much farther faster than personal experience and untested reasonings ever will.Tarzan said:
hand change in advantage(%) hand frequency(%)
15 vs 7 -1.3 0.7
15 vs 8 -1.1 0.5
16 vs 7 -1.1 0.6
16 vs 8 -1.1 0.5
10 vs 4 -4.4 0.3
A3 vs 5 -4.0 0.09
A3 vs 6 -4.1 0.09
A4 vs 4 -4.6 0.08
A5 vs 4 -4.4 0.09
A7 vs 4 -5.0 0.1
22 vs 4 -4.2 0.04
66 vs 3 -5.1 0.04
66 vs 4 -4.9 0.04
77 vs 2 -4.3 0.07
77 vs 4 -5.9 0.07
88 vs 3 -4.3 0.04
88 vs 4 -6.7 0.04
99 vs 3 -4.6 0.04
99 vs 4 -5.6 0.04
Thanks for the sim Psyduck. I believe your frequencies are off. Are you only counting two card totals for your hand in the decisions? For example the hand frequency reference material I have has a frequency of .96 for the top 4 decisions in your list. 77 v 2 or 4 should fall in line with the rest of the splits. After changing the frequencies it looks like that is worth about .1%. Giving that up is like playing a no hole card game or no double after split. Making lots of assumptions that are probably wrong I should expect about twice to three times that. Psyduck since you are having fun with this, the info I have shows a six side count has a smaller increase in PE but a larger increase in profit due to the way the indices affected interact with your ramp in HIOPT II than the 8 side count. The 6 side wins more of the bigger bets while the eight side wins more total bets. They both have sightly smaller gains than the 7 side count.psyduck said:
What I listed was your initial two cards vs dealer's up card.tthree said:
LOL! I like to study different ideas. The fact for me is at my bet level and play frequency, nothing will change my EV much from my HiLo. But it is interesting to see the effect of different parameters.
This is the point I have been trying to make for a while in a number of different threads, Avenger. I think many players fall into this catagory of slightly less playing performance and either don't realize it or won't admit it.blackjack avenger said:
BTW, when counting a neighboring table, you don't have to be super accurate. Just accurate enough to know that table is heading in a better direction than yours. Sometimes you can observe a game accross the pit by watching in a mirrored or reflective ceiling. 
And I think fatigue is something not adequately considered by many. Personally, I cannot ST every shoe for hours on end, its just too mentally taxing. Similarly, if I'm playing poker for a few hours, then switch to blackjack, I'm drained and really can't continue to count more. Playing a simple count, I can do that for hours on end, 8+ hours easily.blackjack avenger said:
Inexperienced player here. I have had a weird feeling in my last couple of sessions - that of total confidence in my count and TC conversion. For the first time, I don't find myself straining to keep my mind on the task at hand. This took a lot of practice.kewljason said:
No doubt.
Yes! An overtone of respect even when diametrically opposed, a chance to actually learn something. I have to thank Tarzan for interjecting himself and creating a better arena for discussion when it was in danger of getting out of hand. So many bright people here. So many strong opinions. Such a pleasure listening to these discussions. And no fights, riots, police (mod) intervention, or virtual arrests. What is happening to this place? Intelligent and civil discussion rules!Bay Area Steve said:
Really interesting stuff Tthree. I think the thread got a bit derailed with the promo debate but I admire you for questioning the system rather than just taking a cookie cutter approach. It's always interesting to me how you can get some wildly different opinions when comparing less effective yet simple systems to more advanced yet more difficult counts.tthree said:
I won't argue that the extra information won't help, but the question is whether it helps over 400,000,000 rounds, not whether it helped in a meaningless sample.tthree said:
Where can I find some information on RA composition dependent insurance, Avenger? I recently brought this up on the other site as something I was trying to look into, a bit more, as Insurance is so very important, especially with large spreads. The response I received from a couple members, including one author who I respect a lot, (but doesn't post on this site) was to not give it much consideration. Basically I have heard a few comments regarding this but haven't read any solid information anywhere and searches have yeilded nothing of value.blackjack avenger said:
Practically, it comes down to: for a really good hand (like a 20) you could take insurance a bit before the "strike point", for a superb hand (a blackjack) take insurance really before the "strike point" (some people always take even money), and for a really really bad hand (maybe a 16 without LS?), you might want to wait a TC before taking insurance to not risk losing both bets (this one hasn't been confirmed by any math, but I'm pretty sure it's correctkewljason said:
). Just my general impressions from our discussion.