Systems Archive 3
[ Read Responses | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next ]
Posted by Cyrus on 2 October 1999, at 9:44 a.m., in response to Re: need help, posted by Charles on 27 September 1999, at 2:15 a.m.
Charles, it's nice trying to help others but your ideas need refining:
"Use running counts - do not bother adjusting them to the remaining decks. Adjusting is tricky and most players don't do a good job of it. It is hard to estimate just how many decks are left in the shoe. My simulations show that you can dispose of this tiresome exercise without being disadvantaged."
The running count of a balanced system like HiLo needs to be adjusted to a true count, meaning to account for the approximate number of cards (in the form of decks) remaining to be played. Admittedly, it is difficult for everyone, not just most players, to estimate the remaining number of decks to be played but, with some dedicated practice, this too is absolutely doable.
I must doubt the correctness of your simulations showing no difference (or almost no difference) in expectation when using a running HiLo count vs the TC. This is just not true.
Check Brett Harris' work on unbalanced - balanced systems at bjmath.com (use the Search Engine); he has also put up a post awhile ago showing the weakness of HiLo when used in running-count mode.
"Insuring will lose you money in the long run, except for counts above +10. Insuring at +10 always loses money in the long run, but will make you money from counts of +11 and above."
If you're referring to running-count mode still, then this advice, based on what I wrote above is of no use. If you're referring to a TC mode though, then you're mistaken. For example, the index for taking Insurance in a 6-deck game is HiLo +3 and above. Why you are saying that it is only beneficiary to insure at +10 or above is uncomprehensible: simply put, you insure when the ratio of 10-value cards to non-10-value cards is high enough to warrant taking this side-bet. And the HiLo system, with as much information for the Insurance play it can gather with its particular tag values, estimates that in the 6-deck game this ratio is arrived at at TCs +3 and higher (actually at exactly +3 it's a toss-up).
"I am not sure if my simulator insures on the basis of the count at the time insurance is open, or on the basis of the count at the start of that betting round - don't you hate that"
A proper simulation program should simulate the Insurance play being decided upon with ALL cards taken into account - and that includes the cards dealt in the round when dealer shows an Ace and asks for Insurance. Just like a card counter should do at the tables.
"ignore 'clumping'" theories and myths"
Myself, I could not agree more..
"Bet IN PROPORTION TO YOUR POSITIVE COUNT. This means, betting 1 unit at the count of +6, 2 units at the count of +7, 3 units at the count of +8, and so on, until a maximum of 10 units."
Let's say you're playing a 6-decker with another player and the 1st round's cards are: Player #1: 9,5 - Player #2: 5,5,2 - Dealer: 4,4,5,A,3. The HiLo RC is +7. It is NOT correct to raise your bet beyond 1 unit. The HiLo TC is +7/6=1.something - which means you still are at best on even keel with the house but certainly that you do not have any advantage which merits a bet increase.
-- The suggestion given by chame_itho to get ahold of Stanford Wong's Professional Blackjack is in my opinion the best one in this thread, including this here poor attempt at advice. Take care.
The Mathematics of Blackjack
The Systems Archive 3 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.