Abraham de Moivre
Well-Known Member
My wonderful amazing inventions.
Shortly after learning HiLo, I was doing a little research on WHY the system worked. I stumbled across some of Thorp's effect of removal numbers, and started studying them. At the time, I was playing mostly shoes and didn't make any deviations from basic strategy. I was crushing the game with a no heat casino, extremely large spread, and a wonderful 85%-90% penetration. I was grinding out a profit thru betting power alone.
So anyways, there I was looking at the numbers, and doing some BE calculations with my paper and pencil. (I knew the BE of HiLo for the game I was playing was 97%, but I wanted to know WHY.) Suddenly it hit me. If I counted the 2s as 1/2 and included the 7s as 1/2, the count was still balanced, and the BE increased to 99%. There had to be some catch, I thought, or someone would have thought of this before. While thinking of a name for my new count system, I inquired of Don Schlesinger if there were any flaws in my thinking and system. Don politely informed me that there were none, in fact, a man named Revere had beat me to my invention by about 15 years with his Revere Point Count.
So happily using the Revere Point Count, I started in with the I18, and continued in my quest to improve the state of counting. Checking out the "World's Greatest Blackjack Book", I stumbled across the HI-OPT1 count, and it's approximately 20% increase in PE over HiLo. A new invention! Forget the RPC, go back to HiLo and sacrifice 2% in BE, and gain 20% in PE! Simply use HiLo, and instead of side-counting Aces, keep a separate running count -- 2s = +1/Aces = -1. Adding this running count to the normal HiLo running count gives me HI-OPT1! Bet with the BE of HiLo, play with the PE of HI-OPT1. The best of both worlds.
Now to my dismay, in a post below, I see T-Hopper is advocating an approach that is just that. I feel certain he probably beat me time-wise to this invention, and I bow to his superior knowledge and stature in the game.
Foiled again.
Now I am working on another 'invention', and wonder if any here have the resources to test my theory. Combining some knowledge from "Blackjack Attack" by Don Schlesinger (16 vs T is the #1 strat variation) and "The Theory of Blackjack" by Peter Griffin, I wonder about the following "side count". Count 6s as +1, 7s as -1. Use the +/- of this side count to determine if you should hit/stand on 16 vs T. That's it. Use whatever count you want for everything else, and use this side count just for 16 vs T and 15 vs 9 plays. Amazingly, this simple 6/7 ratio is supposed to be the most effective determination of hitting/standing on 16 vs T. And since 16 vs T is your #1 frequently encountered play variation (and most profitable), doesn't it stand to reason that a side count that allows you to take best advantage of your best play would have to be the best side count?
Anyone have any numbers or simulations of what advantage this 6/7 side count can bring? Then we can compare it to the overall PE increase of the 2/A side count, and see if my 'discovery' is worth anything, or do I once again have to return to the grindstone.
Shortly after learning HiLo, I was doing a little research on WHY the system worked. I stumbled across some of Thorp's effect of removal numbers, and started studying them. At the time, I was playing mostly shoes and didn't make any deviations from basic strategy. I was crushing the game with a no heat casino, extremely large spread, and a wonderful 85%-90% penetration. I was grinding out a profit thru betting power alone.
So anyways, there I was looking at the numbers, and doing some BE calculations with my paper and pencil. (I knew the BE of HiLo for the game I was playing was 97%, but I wanted to know WHY.) Suddenly it hit me. If I counted the 2s as 1/2 and included the 7s as 1/2, the count was still balanced, and the BE increased to 99%. There had to be some catch, I thought, or someone would have thought of this before. While thinking of a name for my new count system, I inquired of Don Schlesinger if there were any flaws in my thinking and system. Don politely informed me that there were none, in fact, a man named Revere had beat me to my invention by about 15 years with his Revere Point Count.
So happily using the Revere Point Count, I started in with the I18, and continued in my quest to improve the state of counting. Checking out the "World's Greatest Blackjack Book", I stumbled across the HI-OPT1 count, and it's approximately 20% increase in PE over HiLo. A new invention! Forget the RPC, go back to HiLo and sacrifice 2% in BE, and gain 20% in PE! Simply use HiLo, and instead of side-counting Aces, keep a separate running count -- 2s = +1/Aces = -1. Adding this running count to the normal HiLo running count gives me HI-OPT1! Bet with the BE of HiLo, play with the PE of HI-OPT1. The best of both worlds.
Now to my dismay, in a post below, I see T-Hopper is advocating an approach that is just that. I feel certain he probably beat me time-wise to this invention, and I bow to his superior knowledge and stature in the game.
Foiled again.
Now I am working on another 'invention', and wonder if any here have the resources to test my theory. Combining some knowledge from "Blackjack Attack" by Don Schlesinger (16 vs T is the #1 strat variation) and "The Theory of Blackjack" by Peter Griffin, I wonder about the following "side count". Count 6s as +1, 7s as -1. Use the +/- of this side count to determine if you should hit/stand on 16 vs T. That's it. Use whatever count you want for everything else, and use this side count just for 16 vs T and 15 vs 9 plays. Amazingly, this simple 6/7 ratio is supposed to be the most effective determination of hitting/standing on 16 vs T. And since 16 vs T is your #1 frequently encountered play variation (and most profitable), doesn't it stand to reason that a side count that allows you to take best advantage of your best play would have to be the best side count?
Anyone have any numbers or simulations of what advantage this 6/7 side count can bring? Then we can compare it to the overall PE increase of the 2/A side count, and see if my 'discovery' is worth anything, or do I once again have to return to the grindstone.
