Ace Side Count??

[kewljason]

At the risk of redundancy, I want to emphasize that if you are doing this at 2D, it is not very valuable due to the infrequency of the event... but its a simple addition to note the keycards and bet accordingly, which adds demonstrative value to the excercize and may add a little cover-gambit simultaneously. zg

At the risk of redundancy....let me reapeat myself. :laugh: Just kidding, Z.

Key card is not a viable strategy for my style of play. Due to leaving after high counts and agrressive wonging during neg counts, I am rarely around for after the shuffle, although it is a little more common during dd games.

Now lets clarify, your terminology. When you say "not very valuable" are you saying the strategy is so flawed that it is detracting from any advantage that I obtain from regular counting and should cease immediately, or are you saying it adds value but just very minute value, in which case I will continue to do so. I am not really setting out to side count anything. It just so happens that with doubledeck game it is almost impossible not to notice how many Ace's have hit the felt. There is only 8 for god sakes. So I am not putting any specific effort into this. I am talking about very specific situations. ex: The TC is +2 with 1 deck remaining. I know that only 2 aces have hit the felt. basically that means the ratio of 10's is normal and there are 2 extra aces. Are you saying the advantage is not greater than a random +2 TC?? Yes, infrequent occurance. Does that mean i shouldn't take advatage of it.

 

[tthree]

heres the math

KJ:

Your logic usually makes sense but I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Excess aces in a - count means fewer BJ's AND the dealer makes more hands. You stand a greater chance of losing your doubles that include an ace. I think the value of getting an A as the first card diminishes as the count drops.

nuetral count 1 deck left expectation: 16 ten value cards 4 aces
BJ probability 16/52*4/51 + 4/52*16/51 = .0482655

neutral count 1 deck remaining rich 3 aces: 13 ten value cards 7 aces
Bj probability 13/52*7/51 + 7/52*13/51 = .0686275

Increase blackjack comparitively: .0686275/.0482655 = 1.421875

Thats a 42.1875% increase in the probability of a blackjack in the situation in question

 

[tthree]

Sizing bet accurately every time

I hope you ace reckoned count advocates paid attention to the math in my last post on this thread. You give up PE and IC for an increase in BC over ace neutral count. The increase in BC is due to the ability for it to indicate the likelihood of BJ has increased. An ace side count fine tunes that prediction for the ace reckoned count improving the BC but doing nothing for your PE or IC.

An ace neutral count starts with a very high PE and IC but a poor BC because of the lack of the ability to flag high blackjack opportunities. Add an ace side count and your BC is far superior to an ace reckoned count because the actual probability of BJ is what is flagged (causing the appropriate size bet to be made every time) not the average of all ace densities that would produce for any TC with a particular sum of aces and ten value cards as in an ace reckoned count. The actual probability of blackjack varies greatly with ace density for an ace reckoned TC. So the ace reckoned count user is often over betting his advantage or under betting his advantage and rarely has the appropriate bet out.

 

[HockeXpert]

But, I didn't say a negative count. I said, if the count was nuetral, with an excess of aces, I would put out a larger bet than my normal nuetral count wager. If the count was negative, that would fall into the catagory, where I said, most times I do little with the information.

KJ:

I withdraw my objection. I misread your post to apply in - situations. I forgot you never play - situations. :laugh:

 

[jack.jackson]

nuetral count 1 deck left expectation: 16 ten value cards 4 aces
BJ probability 16/52*4/51 + 4/52*16/51 = .0482655

neutral count 1 deck remaining rich 3 aces: 13 ten value cards 7 aces
Bj probability 13/52*7/51 + 7/52*13/51 = .0686275

Increase blackjack comparitively: .0686275/.0482655 = 1.421875

Thats a 42.1875% increase in the probability of a blackjack in the situation in question

Two Questions(2D Game)

If you had a TC of -4 with 1 deck remaining and no Aces seen what would your next bet be, using Ho2?

Using Ho2, neutral count, all 8 Aces seen, would you take insurance?

 

[tthree]

Ace side count adjustments

Two Questions(2D Game)

If you had a TC of -4 with 1 deck remaining and no Aces seen what would your next bet be, using Ho2?

Using Ho2, neutral count, all 8 Aces seen, would you take insurance?

Add +2 (ten value cards are +2 in HO2) to the running count for each surplus ace for betting purposes. That would make the TC +4 FOR BETTING PURPOSES with one deck remaining.

I assume you are not trying to formulate a trick question so the last ace is the dealer ace. I am not sure this is correct but the TC index for insurance would then become 0. This would be the equivalent of a 48 card deck with 16 ten value cards. Ive never considered adjusting the insurance index until now.

I am new to the ace side count so anyone who knows I am wrong, please correct me.
___________________________________________________________
Upon further thought I think splitting the difference between 0 and your insurance index would be the correct play as half of those aces are expected to be played at the 1 deck left point.

 

[zengrifter]

Key card is not a viable strategy for my style of play. Due to leaving after high counts and agrressive wonging during neg counts, I am rarely around for after the shuffle, although it is a little more common during dd games.

WE were only speaking of 2D. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Now lets clarify, your terminology. When you say "not very valuable" are you saying the strategy is so flawed that it is detracting from any advantage that I obtain from regular counting and should cease immediately, or are you saying it adds value but just very minute value, in which case I will continue to do so. Yes, infrequent occurance. Does that mean i shouldn't take advatage of it.

Minute value, by all means do it if it gives you satisfaction.
But I am sure that a sim, if could be done, will show relative lack of value.
It is NOT something to be encouraged to others following along here and trying to get their game on.
On the other hand, keying the Aces and occasionally making a couple of big bets in neg-counts, is much more satisfying and valuable for about the same effort, in 2D. zg

 

[tthree]

Two Questions(2D Game)

If you had a TC of -4 with 1 deck remaining and no Aces seen what would your next bet be, using Ho2?

Using Ho2, neutral count, all 8 Aces seen, would you take insurance?

Alright Jack I think you were testing me. I saw your post on the other ace side count thread. You seem to know what you are doing. What is the correct answer to your insurance question? I want to know. I probably wouldnt have adjusted at all but clearly the ace information has value in this situation. Any information on the zero point cards affect the density of tens.

 

[jack.jackson]

Alright Jack I think you were testing me. I saw your post on the other ace side count thread. You seem to know what you are doing. What is the correct answer to your insurance question? I want to know. I probably wouldnt have adjusted at all but clearly the ace information has value in this situation. Any information on the zero point cards affect the density of tens.

Yep, it was a test:joker:

For ao2 and ho2 we can add or subtract 1.5 for every surplus or shortage of Aces to our RC to enhance our insurance decision. And since we have 4 X-tra(8 total) Aces in the previous example and we take insurance at +6 with these counts(maybe +5 with ho2); well you guessed it, 4x1.5=+6 with 1D remaining is a TC of +6 that was initially a RC of 0. Remember?.

I also took the liberty of double checking this with KCs program. Notice how i left one Ace in there. Although close, it wasnt high enough to warrant an insurance bet. However, notice the one with all Aces removed. See next page.

 

[jack.jackson]

See previous post.

I thought i might also mention, there is different method to do this as well. See victor insurance parameter.

 

[zengrifter]

Jack, did you just prove moi wrong? That counting Aces in Ace-reckoned counts is NOT a time waster? zg

 

[tthree]

VIP insurance ace adjustment method, what do you think

See previous post.

I thought i might also mention, there is different method to do this as well. See victor insurance parameter.

Thanks Jack. I finally decided my initial guess was right. My service went down last night so I didnt get your answer until today. I was more interested in method than answer so thanks for including that. When I lost my feed I had just found the VIP on the wizards site. He seemed to think it was more accurate. I just find its accuracy hard to believe. How would a bet determined by 10 density accurately determined by a system that only considered unseen aces? I never finished reading about it when I lost my feed so maybe I missed something. I was going to start a new thread about this.
___________________________________________________________________
Now I have reviewed the wizards VIP column again. So with Vip you divide the running count by the number of unseen aces and compare to your counts VIP threshold. That isnt the most intuitive approach but it does include your ten value card information. Have you ever simmed to check their accuracy claims? It certainly is easier. I would like to hear some expert opinions who took the trouble to attempt to verify their claims that such a beautifully simple ace adjusted insurance determination has more accuracy than the method you outlined.

 

[tthree]

Victors proof of VIP

I looked over Victors proof, the math looks sound (sometimes its hard to spot errors in other peoples work). I can see were it would be an improvement over the method Jack outlined. No estimating involved. Just error in keeping your counts. If you can count without error the only thing stopping 100% insurance efficiency for a level one balanced count is the lack of knowledge of the other zero point value cards and the accuracy of the VIP index itself. Very very interesting.