Systems Archive 1

[ Read Responses | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]


Re: Why not hi-lo with ace-count?

Posted by T-Hopper on Wednesday, 19 November 1997, at 3:36 p.m., in response to Why not hi-lo with ace-count?, posted by Steve Heston on Wednesday, 19 November 1997, at 12:43 p.m.

I have spent quite a bit of time studying High-Low with ace
side count. It was presented in previous editions of Professional
Blackjack, along with Halves adjusted for aces. There is
very little difference between High-Low/Hi-Opt I, except for
the diffculty of the mechanics involved in calculating the
ace adjustments instead of simply adding two running counts
together. Also, this is incompatible with the idea of using
an unbalanced running count since the cards remaining must
be estimated for every play decision.

Regarding your other point, that is exactly the intention of
the SourceBook. I have selected the most common games for
1, 2, and 6 decks, and rate the systems based on the following:

Win/100
Avg Bet
SD/100
Initial Bet Advantage(Win/Avg Bet)
Bankroll for 1% Risk of Ruin
Return on Investment: (Win/100)/Bankroll

Eventually I will summarize the results in various articles
intended to guide the reader in selecting a system for their
own use. I have figured out the values for learning more
indices and am currently researching a way to evaluate the
difference between using the running count and using the
true count for each play.


Responses


Password:


The Systems Archive 1 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.