Lucky Ladies side bet with TKO?

MrSmith

Active Member
#1
Can someone figure out the TC necessary for the Lucky Ladies side bet on the games near me?

6D shoe
Payout 1000/125/19/9/4
83% Penetration (1 Deck)
$5 side bet

I use the Color of Blackjack KO counting system so I start my IRC at 0. If someone can let me know the TC needed before placing this side bet I would greatly appreciate it. I plan to use the following formula:
TC = [RC-(4*Decks Played)]/Decks Unplayed
to solve for RC positions in half deck increments during the shoe. Rounding up to the next highest TC. For example, if TC7 is necessary I would need a RC of 33 with 3 decks played, RC of 36 with 2 decks played & RC of 35(rounded from 34.5) with 2.5 decks played. Is this correct thinking or is this a bad idea? Thanks.
 

revrac

Well-Known Member
#2
MrSmith said:
Can someone figure out the TC necessary for the Lucky Ladies side bet on the games near me?

6D shoe
Payout 1000/125/19/9/4
83% Penetration (1 Deck)
$5 side bet

I use the Color of Blackjack KO counting system so I start my IRC at 0. If someone can let me know the TC needed before placing this side bet I would greatly appreciate it. I plan to use the following formula:
TC = [RC-(4*Decks Played)]/Decks Unplayed
to solve for RC positions in half deck increments during the shoe. Rounding up to the next highest TC. For example, if TC7 is necessary I would need a RC of 33 with 3 decks played, RC of 36 with 2 decks played & RC of 35(rounded from 34.5) with 2.5 decks played. Is this correct thinking or is this a bad idea? Thanks.
Someone on here did simulations with all the different methods and when to place the side bet. The short answer is around a running count of 7 to 10 depending on the penetration.

(http://web.archive.org/web/20030407221336/cardcounter.com/Lucky_Ladies.htm)
 

MrSmith

Active Member
#3
Thank you! That helps out quite a bit. Since regular KO has an IRC of -20, according to that chart the advantage starts at +10 with 75% penetration. Since I start my IRC at 0, I would use a RC of 30. I guess I don't need to use the formula I posted above to convert to TC but I would like to have a TC number as well.

Even though the purpose of an unbalanced count is to avoid making a TC conversion I would like to "back into" the RC numbers necessary for different positions in the shoe. For instance, a RC of 30 has more advantage in the first deck than it does in the 5th deck simply because of the fact that the count is unbalanced and more 7's are likely played. Using the formula I originally posted above I come up with totally different TC numbers for 1 deck played and 5 decks played. With a RC of 30 and 1 deck played I get TC 5.2. For 5 decks played I get TC 10. Conversely, if I know the TC I will know the optimal RC at any position in the shoe.

Is my analysis correct or am I just over thinking this?
 

revrac

Well-Known Member
#4
MrSmith said:
Thank you! That helps out quite a bit. Since regular KO has an IRC of -20, according to that chart the advantage starts at +10 with 75% penetration. Since I start my IRC at 0, I would use a RC of 30. I guess I don't need to use the formula I posted above to convert to TC but I would like to have a TC number as well.

Even though the purpose of an unbalanced count is to avoid making a TC conversion I would like to "back into" the RC numbers necessary for different positions in the shoe. For instance, a RC of 30 has more advantage in the first deck than it does in the 5th deck simply because of the fact that the count is unbalanced and more 7's are likely played. Using the formula I originally posted above I come up with totally different TC numbers for 1 deck played and 5 decks played. With a RC of 30 and 1 deck played I get TC 5.2. For 5 decks played I get TC 10. Conversely, if I know the TC I will know the optimal RC at any position in the shoe.

Is my analysis correct or am I just over thinking this?
Actually, a running count of 30 with an IRC of 0 is actually more of an advantage when 5 decks have been played rather than 1 deck. This may not seem intuitive at first but think of it this way, if your 6 above your pivot point which would be 24 with your IRC of 0 and you have 6 cards left, you know all the cards are 10's or A's. If your 6 above your pivot with 6 cards played your likelyhood of a 10 or A is much smaller than the 100% in the previous example. What ends up happening is at the beginning the range of positive EV is wider and moves more slowly, towards the end of the shoe or deck the range is much tighter as each point in either direction has a larger impact on your EV. Another way to think is since your using CoBJ the warm area is larger in the beginning of the shoe but you move your bet more slowly, the opposite is true at the end of the shoe.

Make sense?

As an afterthough, while i didn't sim any of these numbers I would say with an average of RC of 30 you would need a count of 32 with less than 1 deck played, 31 with about 2 decks played, 30 with about 3, 28 with 4 decks played and 26 with 5 decks played. You could graph this if it helps.
 

MrSmith

Active Member
#5
I understand what you're saying but when I graph your numbers they intersect the "warm"/"player advantage" line. Shouldn't the 2 lines be parallel? How can I need a higher count when more decks are played to maintain my advantage during bet ramping yet need a lower count to get a "20" and win the lucky ladies bet? Doesn't seem to compute in my head. Seems to me like the 2 lines would have to run parallel since they are both tracking high cards.
 

revrac

Well-Known Member
#6
MrSmith said:
I understand what you're saying but when I graph your numbers they intersect the "warm"/"player advantage" line. Shouldn't the 2 lines be parallel? How can I need a higher count when more decks are played to maintain my advantage during bet ramping yet need a lower count to get a "20" and win the lucky ladies bet? Doesn't seem to compute in my head. Seems to me like the 2 lines would have to run parallel since they are both tracking high cards.
I'm not sure if your getting confused by terming it decks played versus decks remaining but i'll used decks remaining below.

I found this file somewhere else on the site and its my favorite so far because it makes things super easy to see and can be used for a lot of situations. Take a look at the file which i've adjusted to your settings assuming 1.5 deck penetration. On average of all hands you play with about 3.75 decks remaining. With your running count of 30 which was simmed on that other link you have a true count 5.6. So now lets set it so your RC has to be at least 5.6. You'll see the boxed in squares with 5 decks remaining = 32, 4 decks 31, 3 decks 29, 2 decks 28, 1.5 is the most you'll go with 1.5 penetration so count would only need to be 26 that hand.
 

Attachments

MrSmith

Active Member
#7
Thanks a million. That chart is exactly what I was looking for.

I wasn't getting confused about decks played vs unplayed I was merely plugging your data into a graph and the TC formula. In fact, if you look at the excel spreadsheet you provided it supports my statement about the "warm" line or "player advantage" I described perviously. At TC0 or even TC2 the running count needs to INCREASE as more decks are played. 1 deck = TC0 @ RC4. 2 decks = TC0 @ RC8. 3 decks = TC0 @ RC12. Once you get over RC24, (which I guess is the pivot point?), the graph changes shape and the RC needs to DECREASE at a specified TC. I never understood this until now. Thank you.
 

revrac

Well-Known Member
#8
MrSmith said:
Thanks a million. That chart is exactly what I was looking for.

I wasn't getting confused about decks played vs unplayed I was merely plugging your data into a graph and the TC formula. In fact, if you look at the excel spreadsheet you provided it supports my statement about the "warm" line or "player advantage" I described perviously. At TC0 or even TC2 the running count needs to INCREASE as more decks are played. 1 deck = TC0 @ RC4. 2 decks = TC0 @ RC8. 3 decks = TC0 @ RC12. Once you get over RC24, (which I guess is the pivot point?), the graph changes shape and the RC needs to DECREASE at a specified TC. I never understood this until now. Thank you.
Yeah the more decks played the higher the "key count" needs to be but each additional RC will move your TC more and since the TC is always the same at your running count of 24 it requires less above the pivot. Thats one of the reasons why i liked that file, makes everything easy to visualize.

I don't know if you are actually doing the TKO and using the true count conversion formula but I'd suggest just committing a few different "key count" spots to memory and using the KO full indicies, gets you most of the advantage of TKO with much less effort. If you were going to do an adjustment to a balanced method it's been suggested that its much easier to just learn a balanced method to start with as its less complicated than the TC conversion for TKO.
 
Top