I was flipping through my copy of N. Richard Werthamer's "Risk and Reward: The Science of Blackjack" last night and I came across a table of system tag values which included the following entries:
Tags for (Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Ten)
Halves I: -1.5, +1, +1, +1, +1.5, +1, +0.5, 0, -0.5, -1 (BC = 0.994)
Halves II: -1. +0.5, +1, +1, +1.5, +1, +0.5, 0, -0.5, -1 (BC = 0.992)
What he calls "Halves II" is Wong's Halves count from Professional Blackjack, which happens to be what I have used for years.
His Halves I count increases the value of the Ace and offsets it with the deuce.
I confirmed his Betting Correlation calculations using our own Efficiency Calculator:
(Just double the tags to use the calculator for Halves.)
Halves I
PE: 0.4939
BC: 0.9937
IC: 0.6667
Halves II (rhe normal Halves count)
PE: 0.5650
BC: 0.9919
IC: 0.7247
Just eyeballing these numbers, I'm sure with any index plays Wong's version is still going to be superior because of the better Playing Efficiency.
I still found it surprising that the BC of Wong's count could be improved by tweaking it. Has anyone heard of this count before?
Tags for (Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Ten)
Halves I: -1.5, +1, +1, +1, +1.5, +1, +0.5, 0, -0.5, -1 (BC = 0.994)
Halves II: -1. +0.5, +1, +1, +1.5, +1, +0.5, 0, -0.5, -1 (BC = 0.992)
What he calls "Halves II" is Wong's Halves count from Professional Blackjack, which happens to be what I have used for years.
His Halves I count increases the value of the Ace and offsets it with the deuce.
I confirmed his Betting Correlation calculations using our own Efficiency Calculator:
(Just double the tags to use the calculator for Halves.)
Halves I
PE: 0.4939
BC: 0.9937
IC: 0.6667
Halves II (rhe normal Halves count)
PE: 0.5650
BC: 0.9919
IC: 0.7247
Just eyeballing these numbers, I'm sure with any index plays Wong's version is still going to be superior because of the better Playing Efficiency.
I still found it surprising that the BC of Wong's count could be improved by tweaking it. Has anyone heard of this count before?