Systems Archive 1

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


Re: Simpler way to do T-Hop 1

Posted by T-Hopper on Friday, 21 November 1997, at 4:26 p.m., in response to Re: Simpler way to do T-Hop 1, posted by Pete Moss on Thursday, 20 November 1997, at 9:53 p.m.


T-Hop 1 (running count) is identical to using Uston Advanced Plus-Minus as the betting count and adding the number of aces-seen for
playing.

I thought UAP/M didn't count deuces.

That is correct. K-O is preferred over Uston Plus/Minus
because the deuce makes it much stronger for betting.
Too bad Uston never thought of using Wong's ace adjustment
idea or we'd have had this system years ago.


Isn't easier to just count aces and add them to a balanced count for occasional playing decisions?

Simpler, yes. Correct, no, not if you use true-count conversion, which is quite significant for playing decisions. What you would need to do is
subtract the number of aces remaining, then divide by the (fractional) number of decks left. If you use the original indices, you now must add
four to your true count -- either that or re-memorize the indices with four subtracted. It would be better to generate new indices.

Using a running count for playing and a true count for
betting is getting the whole idea backwards. It would make
more sense to use Griffin-1 as the primary count and K-O
as the final count. At least then there would be no adjustment
needed before computing the true count.

By the way, you are not the first person to ask this question.
I'll be sure to explain why I don't like this idea in the book.


Responses


Password:


The Systems Archive 1 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.