Calculating BC, IC & PE of Multiparameter Systems

T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
#21
#21
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II *LINK*

"As we will see, professional level systems are based on the identical ingredients. Thus, this chapter can be used by the student of UAPC, Hi Opt I & II, Revere APC, or other counts as an assist in preparing for casino play."

That's not a description of the secondary count. Uston is telling players who have already learned a professional-level system not to skip that chapter. Here's what Snyder said:

For those players who want to count aces, for whatever reason, I will present the best ace-counting methods I know. In BJF II #3, I reviewed a book by C. Ionescu Tulcea titled A Book on Casino Blackjack (1982). In my review, I mentioned that although Tulcea's counting systems were presented impractically for non-mathematicians, I liked his method of side-counting aces. What he proposed was to keep the ace count as a balanced count, balancing the aces vs. specified low cards, then adjusting the primary running count by adding the two counts together.
...
The simplest count system which would lend itself well to this approach is the Hi-Opt I count: Tens = -1; 3s, 4s, 5s, and 6s = +1. For your ace side-count, you would count aces as -1, and deuces as +1.
...
But what if you are capable of using a multi-level counting system, and maintaining a secondary count. Okay, blackjack fiends, this is how to ace-adjust the Hi-Opt II Count system. Your primary count is Hi-Opt II: 10s = -2; 2s, 3s, 6s and 7s = +1; 4s and 5s = +2. Your secondary count is: Aces = -2; 3s and 6s = + 1.
...
The nice thing about this counting system is that when you make your ace-adjustment, which is done exactly as with the Hi-Opt I Count, by adding your two running counts together, your ace-adjusted Hi-Opt II Count becomes Revere's Level II Point Count, with a betting correlation of .99.
​
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#22
#22
(NO GOOD ROBSTER)

No good Robster, you clearly have a short and med-term memory deficit - Uston changed his thinking and by 85 he agreed with Snyder and said "HO2 and other Ace-Neutral systems are obsolete" - page 29 Uston on BJ'86 zg
 
T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
#23
#23
One more comment

Peter Griffin occasionally referred to side counts as "secondary counts". I've chosen to use that term exclusively for counts such as the ace-deuce, where there are both + and - values. With a regular side count, you are just counting the number of cards of the rank or ranks seen or remaining. I prefer to start my ace side count at 4 x decks and count down to 0, unlike the method recommended by Uston and Humble (start at 0 and count aces seen).
 
R

Rob McGarvey

Well-Known Member
#24
#24
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II

"As we will see, professional level systems are based on the identical ingredients. Thus, this chapter can be used by the student of UAPC, Hi Opt I & II, Revere APC, or other counts as an assist in preparing for casino play."

#That's not a description of the secondary count. Uston is telling players who have already learned a professional-level system not to skip that chapter.

RM-Later in the book he shows players how to keep track of Aces without using this side count, and that is why I call it "U" Hi Opt II. 1981

Here's what Snyder said:

For those players who want to count aces, for whatever reason, I will present the best ace-counting methods I know. In BJF II #3, I reviewed a book by C. Ionescu Tulcea titled A Book on Casino Blackjack (1982). In my review, I mentioned that although Tulcea's counting systems were presented impractically for non-mathematicians, I liked his method of side-counting aces. What he proposed was to keep the ace count as a balanced count, balancing the aces vs. specified low cards, then adjusting the primary running count by adding the two counts together.
...
The simplest count system which would lend itself well to this approach is the Hi-Opt I count: Tens = -1; 3s, 4s, 5s, and 6s = +1. For your ace side-count, you would count aces as -1, and deuces as +1.
...
But what if you are capable of using a multi-level counting system, and maintaining a secondary count. Okay, blackjack fiends, this is how to ace-adjust the Hi-Opt II Count system. Your primary count is Hi-Opt II: 10s = -2; 2s, 3s, 6s and 7s = +1; 4s and 5s = +2. Your secondary count is: Aces = -2; 3s and 6s = + 1.
...
The nice thing about this counting system is that when you make your ace-adjustment, which is done exactly as with the Hi-Opt I Count, by adding your two running counts together, your ace-adjusted Hi-Opt II Count becomes Revere's Level II Point Count, with a betting correlation of .99.

RM-Snyder is still talking about using the antiquated version of the side count in 1982. By using the simpler Uston method the betting correlation should change to .98 or .96?? We are now counting the A vs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J Q & K instead of against just two cards.
 
R

Rob McGarvey

Well-Known Member
#25
#25
Re: One more comment

"Peter Griffin occasionally referred to side counts as "secondary counts". I've chosen to use that term exclusively for counts such as the ace-deuce, where there are both + and - values. With a regular side count, you are just counting the number of cards of the rank or ranks seen or remaining. I prefer to start my ace side count at 4 x decks and count down to 0, unlike the method recommended by Uston and Humble (start at 0 and count aces seen)."

RM-oh my goodness! How did I know that you also side count Aces?? ;> I'm sure that I have not put in as many hours as you have at the tables and I am able to know the density not by counting up to 4 or down from 4 and just by seeing the discard tray and remembering what I have seen so far. Whether counting down from 4 or up to 4 it is all about training your mind to know the Ace density of the decks.

And I hope you are not saying "do as I say, and not as I do" which is fine for new players, but not for people that want something a little more powerful than an A included count.
 
T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
#26
#26
Re: Hi Opt II vs Uston Hi Opt II

You're misssing the whole point. With Snyder's method, you work a little bit harder on the counting, and save a LOT of trouble by having 2 balanced counts to work with and no "expected number of aces" difficulty to deal with every single hand.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#27
#27
No he isn't...

RM-Snyder is still talking about using the antiquated version of the side count in 1982.
-------------------

No he isn't, he's talking about the method that you are advocating. zg
 
R

Rob McGarvey

Well-Known Member
#28
#28
Re: No he isn't...

Then why is he saying this if he is using Uston's quarter-deck strategy?

"But what if you are capable of using a multi-level counting system, and maintaining a secondary count. Okay, blackjack fiends, this is how to ace-adjust the Hi-Opt II Count system. Your primary count is Hi-Opt II: 10s = -2; 2s, 3s, 6s and 7s = +1; 4s and 5s = +2. Your secondary count is: Aces = -2; 3s and 6s = + 1."
 
T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
#31
#31
And another

I can't remember the source (Dalton? Griffin? Snyder? all 3?) but someone came up with a set of approximate playing EORs. You figure the correlation and make an adjustment so that a 1.00 correlation gives you about .70 PE. This works well as a very fast approximation for a single parameter count.
 
A

alienated

Well-Known Member
#32
#32
Yes, a great time saver...

... for single parameter systems. I first saw this formula (or a version of it) in Clarke Cant's BJ Therapy. I don't know for sure who first developed it, but I really like the paragraph Clarke wrote to introduce it:

"The CC [correlation coefficient, not Clarke Cant!] is not used directly for estimating the PE, but is used in a formula that Arnold Snyder has stated several times came from his jazz mode of doing math, with a model that made Peter Griffin cringe, but which gives very good estimates never the less. Snyder developed predictive effects of removal that derive from a count Griffin developed to give optimal single parameter results with values ranging up to 180. Here we have another instance of a math model that gives good results but in no way precise in its ingredients, and which also gives results which are accurate enough that no one will ever be able to feel any impact of their errors." (BJ Therapy, ch. 3)

Clarke then presents the special EORs, from ace to ten, as (.25 .30 .43 .62 .85 .61 .58 .22 -.26 -.90). These do indeed appear to come from the TTOBJ, 6th ed., p.46, where Griffin lists the following 'system': (51 60 85 125 169 122 117 43 -52 -180) with PE of .703. So the special EORs are basically Griffin's tags divided by 200. Clarke then gives the formula as:

PE = [1.405 - (1 - CC)]*CC/2

which works very nicely. So maybe the credit should correctly go to Snyder? I'm not sure, but I notice Snyder includes Clarke in his list of acknowledgements for BBIBJ, so maybe Clarke knows. (?)
 
T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
#33
#33
Re: Yes, a great time saver...

This can be simplified:

PE = [1.405 - (1 - CC)]*CC/2

to:

PE = (CC + .405) * CC/2

This is one of many formulas that can be much easier to understand after a little junior-high pre-algebra is applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top