Osr: 99.9

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
Here it is my blackjack friends the one and only OSR of 99.9!:grin:
The AX count. The day of the shoes has come!
Code:
                                   +3        +5        +7        +9
        Primary    secondary      1:20      1:40      1:60      1:80
   A      0          -3.5    osr 99.07     99.74     99.83     99.85
   2      2
   3      0          2.5
   4      3                          Bet spread
   5      4                            T.C +3  (1:2)
   6      0          2.5                  
   7      2                      X2    T.C +5
   8      0                                                        
   9     -1                      6D    T.C +7
   X     -3
                                 8D    T.C +9
If you think about it the primary isnt that much harder than a level 2 besides the 5 as +4. Remember were counting 2 less cards in the primary count.
As far as the secondary count goes theres two ways to go about it. Count it as shown, or do what i do and double their value and take 1/2 the running sum of that and add it to your primary count, then caculate your t.c. Who cant count multiples of 7 and 5's. In addition to that, the secondary count will stay positive 80% of the time.

Please note: This count still outperforms other counts at lower bet spreads, but nowhere near the difference at higher speads. Leaving any other count behind without a trace. It is basically geared for huge spreads only!

I actually spent some time developing this. So please enjoy!

So whadaya waiting for? Go make some $$$$$$$
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
jack said:
Here it is my blackjack friends the one and only OSR of 99.9!:grin:
The AX count. The day of the shoes has come!
Code:
                                   +3        +5        +7        +9
        Primary    secondary      1:20      1:40      1:60      1:80
   A      0          -3.5    osr 99.08     99.83     99.92     99.95
   2      2
   3      0          2.5
   4      3                          Bet spread
   5      4                            T.C +3  (1:2)
   6      0          2.5                  
   7      0          1.5          X2    T.C +5
   8      0                                                        
   9     -1                      6D    T.C +7
   X     -3
                                 8D    T.C +9
If you think about it the primary isnt that much harder than a level 2 besides the 5 as +4. Remember were counting 2 less cards in the primary count.
As far as the secondary count goes theres two ways to go about it. Count it as shown, or do what i do and double their value and take 1/2 the running sum of that and add it to your primary count, then caculate your t.c. Who cant count multiples of 7 and 5's. In addition to that, the secondary count will stay positive 80% of the time.

Please note: This count still outperforms other counts at lower bet spreads, but nowhere near the difference at higher speads. Leaving any other count behind without a trace. It is basically geared for huge spreads only!

I actually spent some time developing this. So please enjoy!

So whadaya waiting for? Go make some $$$$$$$
Well i made one final adjustment. I took the seven out of the primary count and stuck it in the secondary at 1.5 for more power. In effect, giving it the most powerful system for betting and giving it a flawless OSR of one!
 
jack said:
Well i made one final adjustment. I took the seven out of the primary count and stuck it in the secondary at 1.5 for more power. In effect, giving it the most powerful system for betting and giving it a flawless OSR of one!
You've got one more thing to do to make this fly- move the 3 over to the primary count.
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
jack said:
Here it is my blackjack friends the one and only OSR of 99.9!:grin:
The AX count. The day of the shoes has come!
Code:
                                   +3        +5        +7        +9
        Primary    secondary      1:20      1:40      1:60      1:80
   A      0          -3.5    osr 99.05     99.75     99.83     99.86
   2      2
   3      2
   4      3                          Bet spread
   5      4                            T.C +3  (1:2)
   6      0          2.5                  
   7      0          1.5          X2   T.C +5
   8      0                                                        
   9     -1                      6D    T.C +7
   X     -3
                                 8D    T.C +9
If you think about it the primary isnt that much harder than a level 2 besides the 5 as +4. Remember were counting 2 less cards in the primary count.
As far as the secondary count goes theres two ways to go about it. Count it as shown, or do what i do and double their value and take 1/2 the running sum of that and add it to your primary count, then caculate your t.c. Who cant count multiples of 7 and 5's. In addition to that, the secondary count will stay positive 80% of the time.

Please note: This count still outperforms other counts at lower bet spreads, but nowhere near the difference at higher speads. Leaving any other count behind without a trace. It is basically geared for huge spreads only!

I actually spent some time developing this. So please enjoy!

So whadaya waiting for? Go make some $$$$$$$
After much debate, automonk is right, recomending that the three be intregrated into the main count. Though, we lose a little in power by valuing the three at +2 in the MC instead of a ideal 2.5 we actually maintain a pe of .60 by doing so. This is the paradox of the system. Above and beyond that, not only is it feasible its logical as well.

Also by valuing the 3 at +2 in the main count our disrepency in a osr remains constant from a 1:4 to 1:20 to a 1:20 to 1:40 gaining by .70 in each of the two different spreads. From a 98.35 99.05 to a 99.75. After 1:40 your level of expectation starts to seriously diminish.

So by making a 1:20 srpead at +3 and maxing out a 1:40 at +5 should give you the biggest bang for your buck.
You could actually make a 1:60 at +7 but the gain in that is only .08
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
This is also an unbalanced count, was that intended?
Ya unfortunetly it was.

Though i cant tell exactly why yet because of the protected srpead sheets. But it has to do with the sidecounts and multi-parameters.
The three for example valued at 1.5 is ideal for pe. while valued at 2.5 is ideal for be.
This is also why the three at 2 in the mc, will actually outperform the three at 2.5 in a sc at low bet spreads. Thats because more emphasis is placed on pe. at low spreads oppossed to big spreads. Once we surpass a 1:20 spread valuing the three at 2.5 will start to outrun if the three was valued at +2 on the MC.
Kinda like a CR80 beating a RM500 off the line, only blow past it in a wheelie at 60 mph three seconds later.

As far as im concerned keeping a sc of A,3,6,7 for betting. Then placing them at different values for the play of hands and insure. Would significantly increase both of these. Imagine what that would do for your OSR.
Though this is out of my league, im intrigued by the theory behind it anyway.
This is the power and logic behind, or lack their of uncompromised counts.
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
jack said:
Ya unfortunetly it was.

Though i cant tell exactly why yet because of the protected srpead sheets. But it has to do with the sidecounts and multi-parameters.
The three for example valued at 1.5 is ideal for pe. while valued at 2.5 is ideal for be.
This is also why the three at 2 in the mc, will actually outperform the three at 2.5 in a sc at low bet spreads. Thats because more emphasis is placed on pe. at low spreads oppossed to big spreads. Once we surpass a 1:20 spread valuing the three at 2.5 will start to outrun if the three was valued at +2 on the MC.
Kinda like a CR80 beating a RM500 off the line, only blow past it in a wheelie at 60 mph three seconds later.

As far as im concerned keeping a sc of A,3,6,7 for betting. Then placing them at different values for the play of hands and insure. Would significantly increase both of these. Imagine what that would do for your OSR.
Though this is out of my league, im intrigued by the theory behind it anyway.
This is the power and logic behind, or lack their of uncompromised counts.
For example,

Code:
                        Betting            playing             insurance
              Primary    side               side                  side

     A          0        -3.5                1.5                    3
     2         +2
     3          0         2.5                2.5                    3
     4         +3
     5         +4
     6          0         2.5                 3                     3
     7          0         1.5                 3                     3
     8          0                            1.5                    3
     9          0         -1                -.5                     3
     X         -3
                                    
                     BC .999+          PC .999+                 IC .99+
                                      PE  .70+
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
jack said:
For example,

Code:
                        Betting            playing             insurance
              Primary    side               side                  side

     A          0        -3.5                1.5                    3
     2         +2
     3          0         2.5                2.5                    3
     4         +3
     5         +4
     6          0         2.5                 3                     3
     7          0         1.5                 3                     3
     8          0                            1.5                    3
     9          0         -1                -.5                     3
     X         -3
                                    
                     BC .999+          PC .999+                 IC .99+
                                      PE  .70+
OR

Code:
                         Betting            playing             insurance
              Primary    side               side                  side

     A          0        -7                    3                    6
     2         +4
     3         +5                                               
     4         +6
     5         +8
     6         +6                                                 
     7          0         3                   6                     6
     8          0                             3                     6
     9          0        -2                  -1                     6
     X         -6
                                    
                    BC .9989+          PC .999+                 IC .98.5+=.99
                                      PE  .70+
Here i doubled the value and reckoned the 3 and 6 for a loss of virtually nothin. I think i finally got it:rolleyes:
 
jack said:
OR

Code:
                         Betting            playing             insurance
              Primary    side               side                  side

     A          0        -7                    3                    6
     2         +4
     3         +5                                               
     4         +6
     5         +8
     6         +6                                                 
     7          0         3                   6                     6
     8          0                             3                     6
     9          0        -2                  -1                     6
     X         -6
                                    
                    BC .9989+          PC .999+                 IC .98.5+=.99
                                      PE  .70+
Here i doubled the value and reckoned the 3 and 6 for a loss of virtually nothin. I think i finally got it:rolleyes:
Very good! You'll need a computer to implement it at the table though.

Being you have a computer running now, you might as well have it do a combinatorial analysis of all the remaining cards to make the decision. That will give you:

BC= 1
PE= 1
IC= 1
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
Very good! You'll need a computer to implement it at the table though.

Being you have a computer running now, you might as well have it do a combinatorial analysis of all the remaining cards to make the decision. That will give you:

BC= 1
PE= 1
IC= 1
Did you not know that im half-vulcan:laugh: No really, i dont think leonard nimoy himself could implement this.

Just for the record though by changing the 6 in the mc to +5 we actually change our OSR to unpresedented .9850, .9917, .9984 , 99.93, [1:4, 1:20, 1:40, 1:60] for betting, which would be ideal for md. Which of course is ideal for betting. However, we lose a little in pe. and insurance by doing so.

Which makes me wonder? If i was half-vulcan and playing in single and double deck maybe by leaving the 6 at +6 in the mc would be beneficial for playing and insurance decisions.

Nevertheless the 6 at +5 is the overall better choice.

Time for a nap, all this has gave me a headache.
__________________________________________________--
Live long and prosper:eyepatch:
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
Dont try this at home.

Finally at last.

Code:
                                         Side     Side     Side
                              Primary    Bet     Play     Insur.

                         A       0       -7        3        6

                         2       4
                         3       5                          1
                         4       6
                         5       8
                         6       5                 1        1

                         7       3                 3        3
                         8       0                 3        6
                         9      -2                 1        8

                         X      -6     Bc.        Pc.       Ic.
_______________________________       .9997     .9994      .990
                                                .702
                                                 pe.

   Not side counting the 3,6 and 9's will result in minimal loss.
Code:
  A:(-7)(0)(0)
  Bc. .999             OSR:     1:4         1:20        1:40        1:60
  Pe. .666                     98.67        98.26       98.86      99.93
  Ic. .876

  A:(-7)(+3)(+6)       OSR:     n/a         n/a          n/a         n/a
 Bc. .999
 Pe. .677
 Ic. .88

All side counts:       OSR:      n/a         n/a          n/a         n/a
 Bc.  .999
 Pe.  .702
 Ic.  .99
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
jack said:
Finally at last.

Code:
                                         Side     Side     Side
                              Primary    Bet     Play     Insur.

                         A       0       -7        3        6

                         2       4
                         3       5                          1
                         4       6
                         5       8
                         6       5                 1        1

                         7       3                 3        3
                         8       0                 3        6
                         9      -2                 1        8

                         X      -6     Bc.        Pc.       Ic.
_______________________________       .9997     .9994      .990
                                                .702
                                                 pe.

   Not side counting the 3,6 and 9's will result in minimal loss.
Code:
  A: Reckoned -7      OSR:       1:4        1:20        1:40       1:60
   Bc. .999                     98.19      99.00       99.82       99.92
   Pe. .545
   Ic. .729
                                          * Not 98.26, 98.86  
  A:(-7)(0)(0)SC                              *            *
  Bc. .999             OSR:     1:4         1:20        1:40        1:60
  Pe. .666                     98.67        99.26       99.86      99.93
  Ic. .876                         
                                      
  A:(-7)(+3)(+6)       OSR:     n/a         n/a          n/a         n/a
  Bc. .999
  Pe. .677
  Ic. .88

  SC:A,7,8*            OSR:     n/a          n/a          n/a         n/a
  Bc: .999
  Pe: .70               * Full SC without 3,6 and 9's
  Ic: .916


Full side counts:      OSR:      n/a         n/a          n/a         n/a
 Bc.  .999
 Pe.  .702
 Ic.  .99
uu
 
Top