hands affected by density of 7

[psyduck]

Side counting 7 should increase PE. What hands are affected so much by the density of 7 that call for index deviations? Apparently 14 vs 10 is the most important one. But one hand alone does not seem to justify the side count effort.

If you side count 7s for better PE, on what hands do you apply the side count information?

 

[The Suburbs]

I'd imagine it would also mostly affect your soft double indices? A/2 or A/3 vs. dealer 2, 3, 4. It can also affect your decision to double/not double your soft 15/16 hands vs. dealer 2, 3, 4 in high counts as well, as you are very likely to end up with a stiff and the dealer is slightly more/less likely to make his hand with more/less 7's.

Also possibly hitting 12 vs. 2 or 12 vs. 3, but most likely much less so than the former.

 

[psyduck]

I'd imagine it would also mostly affect your soft double indices? A/2 or A/3 vs. dealer 2, 3, 4. It can also affect your decision to double/not double your soft 15/16 hands vs. dealer 2, 3, 4 in high counts as well, as you are very likely to end up with a stiff and the dealer is slightly more/less likely to make his hand with more/less 7's.

Also possibly hitting 12 vs. 2 or 12 vs. 3, but most likely much less so than the former.

I think it will affect most of, if not all, the hands that a HiLo player uses indices for. It is only a matter of what degree. Seven is definitely an important small card for improving PE. That is why level 2 systems count 7s.

I have been thinking about the difference between a level 2 system that includes 7 in the main count and a system with 7 side count. If many indices need to be adjusted based on 7 side count, one might just use a leve 2 system. Then the question is which way is more effective. I curretlly cannot simulate effect of side counts for playing.

 

[newbctr]

would change some of the indicies for splitting... 2-2 vs 8 is +5. I would think 7's would lower that as they give you 9 vs 8, and make the dealers 8 stiff. Might also lower 4 vs 4 split index... helps both player and dealer, but player can double on 11. I am guessing it could also effect very marginal indicies where 7's are bad.... 9 vs 2, 8 vs 5/6 DD and others. But overall, I think Suburbs covered most of it

 

[tthree]

13 or 14 vs 9 or 8 or 7

 

[The Suburbs]

I think it will affect most of, if not all, the hands that a HiLo player uses indices for. It is only a matter of what degree. Seven is definitely an important small card for improving PE. That is why level 2 systems count 7s.

I have been thinking about the difference between a level 2 system that includes 7 in the main count and a system with 7 side count. If many indices need to be adjusted based on 7 side count, one might just use a leve 2 system. Then the question is which way is more effective. I curretlly cannot simulate effect of side counts for playing.

It's my understanding that being able to side-count is always preferable (specifically Aces and 7's) to only using a level 1/2/3 count, even if the count incorporates 7's. It's always advantageous to have more information about the composition of the remaining cards. The problem is a matter of brain power and whether it is actually WORTH it to have a side-count. I don't think there's any question that you'd have a larger advantage with a level 2 count + a 7 side-count versus just a level 2 count that incorporates 7's. If you have the brainpower to keep an Ace and 7 side-count along with a level 2 count, more power to you.

One that was missed: 9 vs. 7. As part of the I18, I'd imagine adjusting that one is rather important.

Tthree, I don't know how useful those would be, since the TC would have to be very high to NOT hit 13/14 against 7/8/9. Maybe if there are no 7's left with an exceptionally high count....

 

[psyduck]

It's my understanding that being able to side-count is always preferable (specifically Aces and 7's) to only using a level 1/2/3 count, even if the count incorporates 7's. It's always advantageous to have more information about the composition of the remaining cards. The problem is a matter of brain power and whether it is actually WORTH it to have a side-count. I don't think there's any question that you'd have a larger advantage with a level 2 count + a 7 side-count versus just a level 2 count that incorporates 7's. If you have the brainpower to keep an Ace and 7 side-count along with a level 2 count, more power to you.

One that was missed: 9 vs. 7. As part of the I18, I'd imagine adjusting that one is rather important.

Tthree, I don't know how useful those would be, since the TC would have to be very high to NOT hit 13/14 against 7/8/9. Maybe if there are no 7's left with an exceptionally high count....

It should be relatively easy to have some side counts in pitch games. I imagine if I play mostly single deck games, I would try to side count 7, or 7+8, or even 7+8+9. I am not sure how much PE will be gained, but it would be great to be able to use a very small spread along with these side counts to beat a single deck game.

 

[tthree]

It's my understanding that being able to side-count is always preferable (specifically Aces and 7's) to only using a level 1/2/3 count, even if the count incorporates 7's. It's always advantageous to have more information about the composition of the remaining cards. The problem is a matter of brain power and whether it is actually WORTH it to have a side-count. I don't think there's any question that you'd have a larger advantage with a level 2 count + a 7 side-count versus just a level 2 count that incorporates 7's. If you have the brainpower to keep an Ace and 7 side-count along with a level 2 count, more power to you.

One that was missed: 9 vs. 7. As part of the I18, I'd imagine adjusting that one is rather important.

Tthree, I don't know how useful those would be, since the TC would have to be very high to NOT hit 13/14 against 7/8/9. Maybe if there are no 7's left with an exceptionally high count....

You forgot about surrender.

 

[tthree]

Here are the biggest gains from side counting sevens:

1) 14 v T, 33.94% of total possible gain
2) 13 v T, 11.84% of TPG
3) 16 v 9, 7.04% of TPG
4) 16 v 7, 5.31% of TPG
5) 15 v 9, 5.24% of TPG
6) 16 v 8, 4.99% of TPG

Note I use HIOPT II. These 6 hands up the PE from .653 to .725 and are 68.37% of the gain possible from all hand matchups combined.

7) 15 v 7, 3.37% of TPG
8) 15 v 8, 3.32% of TPG
9) 15 v 6, 1.87% of TPG
10) 10 v T, 1.86% of TPG
11) 14 v A, 1.69% of TPG
12) 15 v 5, 1.55% of TPG
13) 16 v 6, 1.32% of TPG
14) 14 v 2, 1.30% of TPG
15) 13 v 2, 1.04% of TPG
16) 14 v 9, 0.92% of TPG
17) 15 v 3, 0.86% of TPG
18) 14 v 3, 0.85% of TPG
19 n 20) 12 v 5 or T, 0.83% TPG each
21 n 22) 16 v 5, 15 v 4; 0.81% TPG each
23) 15 v 2, 0.78% of TPG

Now we have added another 25.88% of TPG for 94.25% of TPG
and 41 more to make the 5.75% remaining for 100% TPG

 

[psyduck]

Here are the biggest gains from side counting sevens:

1) 14 v T, 33.94% of total possible gain
2) 13 v T, 11.84% of TPG
3) 16 v 9, 7.04% of TPG
4) 16 v 7, 5.31% of TPG
5) 15 v 9, 5.24% of TPG
6) 16 v 8, 4.99% of TPG

Note I use HIOPT II. These 6 hands up the PE from .653 to .725 and are 68.37% of the gain possible from all hand matchups combined.

7) 15 v 7, 3.37% of TPG
8) 15 v 8, 3.32% of TPG
9) 15 v 6, 1.87% of TPG
10) 10 v T, 1.86% of TPG
11) 14 v A, 1.69% of TPG
12) 15 v 5, 1.55% of TPG
13) 16 v 6, 1.32% of TPG
14) 14 v 2, 1.30% of TPG
15) 13 v 2, 1.04% of TPG
16) 14 v 9, 0.92% of TPG
17) 15 v 3, 0.86% of TPG
18) 14 v 3, 0.85% of TPG
19 n 20) 12 v 5 or T, 0.83% TPG each
21 n 22) 16 v 5, 15 v 4; 0.81% TPG each
23) 15 v 2, 0.78% of TPG

Now we have added another 25.88% of TPG for 94.25% of TPG
and 41 more to make the 5.75% remaining for 100% TPG

Very interesting!

If you use HiOpt II that already counts 7, is there any gain to side count 7?
How did you generate those data?

 

[tthree]

Very interesting!

If you use HiOpt II that already counts 7, is there any gain to side count 7?
How did you generate those data?

This chart is for HIOPT II vegas strip single deck rules side counting sevens. The TPG is total possible gain from side counting sevens for HIOPT II. It was originally generated by some one named Long I think. The description of the method is found in The Theory Of Blackjack by Peter Griffin using the EOR tables pp. 74-85 and chapter 3 method for strategy gain.

I figured the relative usefulness of the seven side count are probably the same for the hand matchups for most if not all counting systems.

 

[zengrifter]

Side counting 7 should increase PE. What hands are affected so much by the density of 7 that call for index deviations? Apparently 14 vs 10 is the most important one. But one hand alone does not seem to justify the side count effort.

If you side count 7s for better PE, on what hands do you apply the side count information?

A large percentage of hands are stiffs - all stiffs are affected by excess or shortage of 7s. zg

 

[zengrifter]

I have been thinking about the difference between a level 2 system that includes 7 in the main count and a system with 7 side count. If many indices need to be adjusted based on 7 side count, one might just use a level 2 system.

I don't understand that sentence. zg

 

[psyduck]

I don't understand that sentence. zg

ZG,

What I meant was if many new indices have to be memorized as a result of 7 sidecount, is it better just to learn a level 2 system that already counts 7.

Which way is more effective, HiLo with 7 sidecount or a level 2 count (say Zen) without 7 sidecount?

 

[FLASH1296]

psyduck,

The E.O.R. of sevens is very modest to begin with so …

Counting the sevens (7's) REDUCES the betting correlation of a count.

Side-Counting Sevens (7's) very significantly improves Playing Efficiency.

Besides being important for the playing of your 12's, 13's, and 14's; what about the hands where the dealer is showing an 8 or a 9 ?

Anyone interested in the correct way to Side-Count Sevens with Hi-Opt II — contact me via P.M.

 

[blackjack avenger]

double the return?

7 does have some value for betting, .5 tag in halves. I would think one would want to use a high level count first before a side count. Double count, new indicies to learn & the in casino calculations needed to employ new indices. All this for a marginal return? One can account for the 7 & 9 in certain higher level counts without a side count. Halves is the high BC count, but does have different indices then hi Lo so the 7 is considered

Want to account for 7 or 9? Then use a count that does? Want to account for the A then use Zen. Though halves is generally better.

As an example I would prefer halves over hi Lo with any side count.

 

[psyduck]

This chart is for HIOPT II vegas strip single deck rules side counting sevens. The TPG is total possible gain from side counting sevens for HIOPT II. It was originally generated by some one named Long I think. The description of the method is found in The Theory Of Blackjack by Peter Griffin using the EOR tables pp. 74-85 and chapter 3 method for strategy gain.

I figured the relative usefulness of the seven side count are probably the same for the hand matchups for most if not all counting systems.

tthree,

I have not paid much attention to those tables starting on p74 in the book "the theory of blackjack" because they are confusing due to lack of labels. I just read the instructions carefully and now realize that these tables contain extremely important information for any side count!

Thanks so much for pointing it out or I may not have gone back and studied them more carefully!

 

[zengrifter]

ZG,

What I meant was if many new indices have to be memorized as a result of 7 sidecount, is it better just to learn a level 2 system that already counts 7.

Level-1 gets a huge boost, well beyond what a single parameter level-2 yields.

Multi-parameter exploiting bivaluate-card density adjustments does NOT require more indices.
Instead you must memorize the adjustment per extra/short 7 for a given hand, like 14 for example might be +/-4. zg

 

[psyduck]

7 does have some value for betting, .5 tag in halves. I would think one would want to use a high level count first before a side count. Double count, new indicies to learn & the in casino calculations needed to employ new indices. All this for a marginal return? One can account for the 7 & 9 in certain higher level counts without a side count. Halves is the high BC count, but does have different indices then hi Lo so the 7 is considered

Want to account for 7 or 9? Then use a count that does? Want to account for the A then use Zen. Though halves is generally better.

As an example I would prefer halves over hi Lo with any side count.

My understanding is even if a system tags all the cards such as Uston APC, the PE can only approach 70% because it is still a single parameter system. Let's say you observed a change in TC. The same change caused by 2s or 7s will have different effect on some specific hands.

Side counts certainly will need more brain power. However I think it should not be a big difficulty for pitch games especially single deck games. I am just trying to understand the amount of gain side count may deliver. Some people will believe this is a stupid exercise. But for me more knowledge never hurts.

 

[psyduck]

Level-1 gets a huge boost, well beyond what a single parameter level-2 yields.

Multi-parameter exploiting bivaluate-card density adjustments does NOT require more indices.
Instead you must memorize the adjustment per extra/short 7 for a given hand, like 14 for example might be +/-4. zg

Thanks ZG. By extra indices, I meant the adjustments (adjusted indices if you may).