Ace side count nuances

[Jack_Black]

when using ASC for hi opt 2, is it correct to use a tag value of 2? I have been using it that way, and it works fine. But using Casino verite for environment simulations shows that it should be tagged with value 1. The sim also advises to subtract from the TC if there is an ace deficiency. would that be correct? if a remaining deck is at TC +10, but missing all the aces, I would still think that the chances of busting the dealer are quite high.

it also doesn't seem to be consistent on when to consider the deck ace "rich." if the first 13 dealt cards hasn't seen an ace, then it will show that the deck is ace rich. but if 17 cards are dealt with no aces, then it is suddenly rich by 2 aces???

And if only there was a way to block ZG from seeing this thread.:grin::laugh::joker:

 

[zengrifter]

when using ASC for hi opt 2, is it correct to use a tag value of 2?

And if only there was a way to block ZG from seeing this thread.:grin::laugh::joker:

Yes ... and no. zg

 

[Southpaw]

Yes, you use a -2 tag value when side-counting aces with HO2. As I'm sure you're aware, this "theoretically" gives you the best of both worlds, for you don't have the negativity of the ace screwing up your playing decisions, (surrender and insurance, in particular) yet you are still counting the ace as a full -2 for the betting decisions (as it should be). Why I say "theoretically," is a matter we've discussed before and not one I'd like to discuss again.

SP

 

[iCountNTrack]

When u side count aces in ace neutral counts the tag value assigned is that of 10 valued cards. For instance in ur case hi opt 2, you are already getting the maximum power for playing efficiency so there is no need to compromise and use 1. That is because you are looking for the maximum betting correlation.

 

[Sonny]

The sim also advises to subtract from the TC if there is an ace deficiency.

You subtract from the RC when the deck/shoe is ace deficient. Then convert to TC after the ace adjustment.

if a remaining deck is at TC +10, but missing all the aces, I would still think that the chances of busting the dealer are quite high.

The chances of the dealer (or you) busting probably are higher, which is why you are using the raw (unadjusted) RC for playing decisions. The fact that you won't get any aces to go with those tens means that your betting count should be lower than your playing count, which is where the adjustment comes in. Your advantage (and therefore your initial bet) isn't that high because all the aces are gone, but for playing decisions the aces aren't as important to you.

if the first 13 dealt cards hasn't seen an ace, then it will show that the deck is ace rich.

Right. You would add 2 to the RC to account for that.

but if 17 cards are dealt with no aces, then it is suddenly rich by 2 aces???

I would wait until about 23 or more cards to add another ace to the offset. With only 17 cards dealt I would still only think of it as being rich by 1 ace, but I guess it depends on what kind of deck estimations you are doing. I believe the CV software has multiple settings for that.

-Sonny-