#### Zexika

##### Active Member
xengrifter said:
okay, but your offer must stand even if you do not have money on the spot when it happens, agreed?

Question below, what do you think ...
... or is it to elementary for you to respond? (Just trying to confirm that we are on the same page)
Positive? :/

#### Dog Hand

##### Well-Known Member
xengrifter,

I figured out the anomaly: it arises due to the "resolution" of the remaining decks used to convert the RC to the TC.

For example, if the RC is +7 and exactly 80 cards remain undealt, what is the TC? If a counter resolves to the "exact card", then he says "There are 80/52 = 1.538... decks remaining, so the TC is +7/1.538... = +4.55, which floors to +4."

However, most counters don't estimate the remaining cards exactly: instead, if the counter resolves to "full decks" he says, "There's more than 1 deck remaining, so call it 2 decks, so the TC is +7/2 = +3.5, which floors to +3." If instead he resolves to "half-decks", he says "There's about 1.5 decks remaining, so the TC is +7/1.5 = 4.666..., which floors to +4."

Note that in every case, the counter is dividing the RC by how many full decks remain: the difference is in how he estimates the remaining number of full decks.

With that, I ran two 1-billion-round CVData sims for a 6D game (other rules don't matter) with one deck cut off (5/6 pen) for a Zen counter playing the Lucky Ladies sidebet (in particular, the 1000/125/19/9/4 paytable). The only difference between the two sims is the resolution used to convert the RC to the TC. In the first, the counter estimates to the nearest half-deck; in the second, he estimates to the exact card.

As you'll see in the tables below, the Zen strike point is indeed +11 for either resolution, though the EV varies.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

#### Dog Hand

##### Well-Known Member
I also calculated the average number of units won whenever the sidebet won. If at a given TC we let "b" be the number of bets, "w" be the number of wins, and "EV" be the EV (these three are shown in the table), and we define "ul" as the units lost and "uw" as the units won at that TC, then we can calculate ul as

ul = b - w

and uw as

uw = b*EV + ul

so the Average Win is given by:

Average Win = uw/w = (b*EV + ul)/w = (b*EV + b - w)/w = b*(EV + 1)/w -1

As you can see, the Average Win is relatively consistent in the 6.0-6.1 range throughout most of the output.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
Dog Hand said:
I figured out the anomaly: it arises due to the "resolution" of the remaining decks used to convert the RC to the TC.
I intuited that the skew had something to do with an artificial imposition/constraint, that's why I tended to think maybe cut card. Most LLs action is directed at 2D and with the full pay version ...
... And I think most counters that tackle that 2D version are probably resolving to 1/4D.

What you figured out also answers the question of why there is not always a relatively strong increase in percentage advantage for each upward count tick, and occasionally has curious miniscule increases between certain count increases.

Thanks man, you have added to the overall body of knowledge on this particular sucker bet!

I may be mistaken, but I think the few times we put the question to Doc Jacobson we never resolved it beyond "curious anomaly"...
... If that be the case, you have solved the nearly two decade-old mystery.

Last edited:

#### Dog Hand

##### Well-Known Member
xengrifter said:
I may be mistaken, but I think the few times we put the question to Doc Jacobson we never resolved it beyond "curious anomaly"...
xengrifter,

Did Eliot post the results you quoted earlier? If so, can you provide a link?

Thanks!

Dog Hand

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
Dog Hand said:
Did Eliot post the results you quoted earlier? If so, can you provide a link?
He did not post it, but I did -

He provided that particular sim result to me in 2004 - though at the time we were more focused on a different version called Royal Twenties - that one offered no ultra premium payoffs beyond 25 to 1, but was superior nonetheless because the lowest pay off unsuited 20 paid 5 to 1 AND there were two betting boxes, one of the boxes allowed to bet that the dealer would have 20, and if you played multiple hands, you were allowed to place multiple dealer 20 bets.

#### MistahT

##### New Member
I wrote a sim using my local playing conditions, 8-D shoe, 83% pen (on the dealers I follow), and a 1000-200-25-10-4 payout table and found just using a Hi-Lo count its profitable above a Hi-Lo TC of +3, but given that a +3 TC happens not so much under those conditions and the max \$25 bet its basically worthless. Perhaps more valuable if you keep a separate LL specific count which considers the unusual value of Queen of Hearts.

Playing 1 billion deals only >= +3.0 True Count using standard Hi-Lo system and 1000-200-25-10-4 payouts:

Lucky Ladies Bet Units : 81240744.0
Lucky Ladies Win Units : 83893511.0
Lucky Ladies Profit Units : 2652767.0

So we end up only playing Lucky Ladies on about 81 million hands out of 1 billion or about 8.1% of hands and have an advantage of a little over 3% on those bets. But given the \$25 max bet I come across at \$15 min bet tables, its not something I'd go chasing after.

I've just come to card-counting about 2-weeks ago, so I am sure I am rediscovering stuff people already knew anyway. So if you rather I not contribute then I will wither away back into the nether reaches of the interwebs from whence I came.

Last edited:

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
MistahT said:
So we end up only playing Lucky Ladies on about 81 million hands out of 1 billion or about 8.1% of hands and have an advantage of a little over 3% on those bets. But given the \$25 max bet I come across at \$15 min bet tables, its not something I'd go chasing after.
On the other hand, it's good to know based on your main count when you could comfortably throw that 25 bucks out there....
.... and that opportunity presents itself about once in 12-13 hands in a playall game, so think about how often it presents itself in a wonging game.
.... and there may still be some clubs that allow \$50 or even \$100 LL bets.

Last edited:

#### MistahT

##### New Member
Yeah I mean if we are keeping the Hi-Lo count anyway, no sense in missing out on the 3% EV. Its even more valuable at higher TC but the likelihood of seeing those counts obviously goes down, making the per hour figure lower. I know I'm talking to people who know all this already.

I haven't tried side counting yet in a real casino environment, like keeping a separate LL count while doing the Hi-Lo at the same time, seems daunting to me right now, but I know there are way more effective LL counts if you can keep multiple counts. So to me knowing to throw an LL out at the +3.0 Hi-Lo TC gets me some EV and makes me look like ploppy-ish to any pit-critter, why not.

Last edited:

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
MistahT said:
like keeping a separate LL count while doing the Hi-Lo at the same time,
Nobody does that.
There are, however, several different methods of exploiting Lucky ladies more efficiently then simply using the main count - while not requiring that you abandon your main count.

#### MistahT

##### New Member
What are these different methods that don't involve doing at least some sort different count on the side for LL? The ones I come across so far involve treating Aces as zero/neutral and Qh as like alternating -10 and -2, something starkly different than hi-lo. But like I said, I came to try this as a hobby a few weeks ago so I'm severely under educated.

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
MistahT said:
ones I come across so far involve treating Aces as zero/neutral and Qh as like alternating -10 and -2, something starkly different than hi-lo. B
Yes, well if you want to start with that method, a modified 10-count approach, you are correct to believe that nobody does a 10-count and a high-low simultaneously. A 10-count will generate nearly 50% more sucker bet opportunities than high low.

The above said, the obvious solution that simply did not occur to Jacobson, at least he never mentioned it, is to utilize the ten count for the main bet and playing strategy. Voila, solved! (duh).

Another method that is just as strong as the 10 count, while maintaining your hi low or other point count strategy, is to keep a running side tally of 10s and reference the relative deck depletion to determine when to make the sucker bet.

Yet another method for maintaining your current primary count, while targeting lucky ladies, is to key card clumps of contiguous 10s --- just like key carding aces. Keycarding a clump of three 10s is a powerful method for exploiting Lucky ladies... A single 10 known in advance is worth almost 100% advantage on the sucker bet ... and Qh is worth almost 400% advantage on the sucker bet.

Any questions?

Last edited:

#### MistahT

##### New Member
xengrifter said:
Any questions?
The clumping thing, how do you track clumps with the ASMs? Not CSMs, but ASMs. I haven't gotten close to anything like that yet.

#### Counting_Is_Fun

##### Well-Known Member
MistahT said:
The clumping thing, how do you track clumps with the ASMs? Not CSMs, but ASMs. I haven't gotten close to anything like that yet.
Ugg just forget what he is saying. He brings up old threads, replying to himself and other nonsense.

#### xengrifter

##### Banned
MistahT said:
The clumping thing, how do you track clumps with the ASMs? Not CSMs, but ASMs. I haven't gotten close to anything like that yet.
I did not say shuffle tracking...
... I said keycarding. Pay attention.