Perfect insurance

[RJT]

The ace side count with the Ten Count also shines with the prediction of blackjack frequencies in addition to perfect insurance. A combination that is brutal to handheld 3:2 games when these two strategies are combined. Read this article about blackjack frequencies http://www.examiner.com/x-18051-San-Francisco-Blackjack-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Card-counting-at-blackjack-Las-Vegas at double deck in Las Vegas to judge for yourself.

How does that article give me anything to judge your system on? It's just a description of what your doing and offers no simulated results? Your claiming that your method is stronger - you have to demonstrate this in a compartive test.
Oh and recommending that people who need a BS card to know how to play their hands should be counting is pretty poor....

RJT.

 

[KenSmith]

Your calculations about insurance are nonsense Ken Smith. If all aces have been dealt with a +1 count in a deeply dealt single deck game (50% penetration or better), insurance has to be taken with the Ten Count described by me.

Your count, as described in your posts in this thread, would NOT have you insuring in this situation, unless you're making up extra rules to account for your error.

This thread allowed us a simple opportunity to see how committed you are to actually being accurate, and the test failed. Go ahead and publish your flawed articles and leave us alone here. I won't waste my time trying to help you in the future. Lesson learned.

 

[21forme]

I propose that JSTAT be limited to posting in the voodoo forum.

 

[FLASH1296]

I second the motion.

All in favor ?

Opposed ?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Your count, as described in your posts in this thread, would NOT have you insuring in this situation, unless you're making up extra rules to account for your error.

This thread allowed us a simple opportunity to see how committed you are to actually being accurate, and the test failed. Go ahead and publish your flawed articles and leave us alone here. I won't waste my time trying to help you in the future. Lesson learned.

Yeah, me neither. I've worked with those system tags, generated indices, and used properly the "JSTAT" Count is slightly more powerful than High-Low on DD games. A valuable tool for certain jobs. But if the guy is going to be like that towards his AP colleagues, why bother getting involved?

 

[JSTAT]

Your method is far more complicated because it requires you to decide how many "extra" aces you have seen.

And, it doesn't always provide the correct answer either.
Let's say we get a deeply dealt game and we have seen 11 tens and 23 non-tens-or-aces, and all 4 aces have been dealt.

Your count here is +1. You have seen one extra ace, so you'll add one to that getting +2. Still not enough for your system to take insurance. Actually, insurance is a nice edge for the player here, since 5/14 of the remaining cards are tens.

You can avoid this mistake by simply adding the total number of aces seen to your count and using +4 as the index number. Count of +1, add 4 for the 4 aces seen, and we see that +5 says we should insure.
It's always accurate, and much simpler.

I cannot imagine why you prefer your complicated and ineffective alternative.

You are referring to the Noir, Archer, Roberts Ten Count here and all aces have been dealt with a count of +1 with 11 tens and 23 non tens (including all aces) played. 38 cards have been played and insurance is not taken because the ratio of t/nt is over 2-1. An accurate insurance count, but ineffective with betting and playing situations, unless the aces are side counted.

You have the best of both worlds with the Ten count I presented. This Ten Count would have the count at -3 (not +1, as you wrongly state Ken) with all aces gone with 14 cards to play. Also not a good bet for insurance, but if one more round is played, the Noir, Archer, Roberts Ten Count would assume not much change in the house percentage. My Ten Count would indicate that a blackjack is impossible the next round, and an additional -2.4% is tacked on to the house edge.

Ken, you called this a "complicated and ineffective alternative" method. Your statement is wrong and I fired off an inappropiate post concerning you, for that, I apologize. The Ten Count I use is very effective and similar to the transformers toys kids use. The count can be transformed into perfect insurance betting, perfect blackjack frequency prediction, and accurate playing strategy with the 8's,9's side count. You get 3 methods of advantage play all in one from this Ten Count, can another count approach this?

 

[JSTAT]

Your count, as described in your posts in this thread, would NOT have you insuring in this situation, unless you're making up extra rules to account for your error.

This thread allowed us a simple opportunity to see how committed you are to actually being accurate, and the test failed. Go ahead and publish your flawed articles and leave us alone here. I won't waste my time trying to help you in the future. Lesson learned.

Sorry that you feel that way Ken Smith.

 

[zengrifter]

The El Dorado is, in fact, connected to the Legacy, not across the street.
Are there any more misrepresentations we should be made aware of?

You cross a catwalk bridge, right? zg

 

[zengrifter]

Your calculations about insurance are nonsense Ken Smith.

Thats tellin' him. zg

 

[zengrifter]

I second the motion.

All in favor ?

Opposed ?

I vote for full permanent exclusion for all of the obvious reasons. JSTAT have
been a disingenuous post interloper with a flawed appreciation of advantage
gambling and BJ... and he purposely casy the forum, Ken,... and moi in a bad and
dishonest light in the pseudo newspaper Examiner.com. zg

 

[zengrifter]

You are referring to the Noir, Archer, Roberts Ten Count here and all aces have been dealt with a count of +1 with 11 tens and 23 non tens (including all aces) played. 38 cards have been played and insurance is not taken because the ratio of n/nt is over 2-1. An accurate insurance count, but ineffective with betting and playing situations, unless the aces are side counted.

Puhhhhhleeeeeze. zg

 

[bj bob]

You cross a catwalk bridge, right? zg

No, just go up the escalator and follow the promenade, pass the shops,restaurants, Brew Bros., catch the escalator down and you're on the El Dorado casino floor and vise-versa, pretty fancy for a "cat walk".

 

[johndoe]

Not that it matters that much:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=el+dorado+reno&ie=UTF8&ll=39.529748,-119.81418&spn=0,359.99029&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.529897,-119.814239&panoid=DwN_d-6xUpyYfT7lWxnGbQ&cbp=12,283.56,,0,-1.07

 

[JSTAT]

I vote for full permanent exclusion for all of the obvious reasons. JSTAT have
been a disingenuous post interloper with a flawed appreciation of advantage
gambling and BJ... and he purposely casy the forum, Ken,... and moi in a bad and
dishonest light in the pseudo newspaper Examiner.com. zg

Why the discouragement of what has been posted in this thread zg? The information helps all.

 

[BillytheBJkid]

Why the discouragement of what has been posted in this thread zg? The information helps all.

Thanks for the info. I saw your videos on youtube also and in the newspaper. Is the jstat count better than revere count for 8 deck games in atlantic city or just 2 deck games in las vegas?

 

[Sonny]

Is the jstat count better than revere count for 8 deck games in atlantic city or just 2 deck games in las vegas?

It is worse for both games. There are dozens of threads that explain exactly why the Jstat count is inferior so I won't repeat all the reasons. Just look back over Jstat's posting history to see the weaknesses. A beginner is much better off learning a simple system like HiLo or KO. You can always upgrade to a more complicated system later, although you probably won’t need to. Your choice of counting system should be insignificant to your win rate. Just focus on the basics for now. There is more than enough to learn without worrying about different counting systems.

-Sonny-

 

[KenSmith]

You are referring to the Noir, Archer, Roberts Ten Count here and all aces have been dealt with a count of +1 with 11 tens and 23 non tens (including all aces) played. 38 cards have been played

You misquoted the situation I described. Here is the relevant section of my post: we have seen 11 tens and 23 non-tens-or-aces, and all 4 aces have been dealt.

You did seem to understand that 38 total cards have been dealt, but you then say that the 23 non-tens includes the 4 aces which does not add up to the right number of total cards.

To be clear, the 23 cards does NOT include the 4 aces.

38 cards have been dealt: 11 were tens, 4 were aces including the current dealer upcard, 23 were cards of 2-9 value.

Using the card tags you described in the first post of this thread, your current running count is +1, as I said. If you dispute this, then please explain how your count is different than what you initially described.

This Ten Count would have the count at -3 (not +1, as you wrongly state Ken) with all aces gone with 14 cards to play. Also not a good bet for insurance,

Whether your count is +1 (as I claim) or -3 (as you claim), either way you agree that your count indicates that you should not insure. That is incorrect. The remaining 14 cards include 5 tens. That's a nice player edge for betting the insurance bet, yet your "perfect insurance" count doesn't detect it. My problem with you is that one tiny change (a simplification even!) in your system DOES do perfect insurance correlation, yet you refuse to consider it.

 

[bjcount]

Ha, this is funny.

ICNT!!!!!

Where are you!!!!

Now Ken got stuck in the JSTAT trap.... hook line and sinker....

(((LOCK THE THREAD)))


before we lose Ken in the abyss.


(((HHHHEEEELLLLPPPPP)))

 

[JSTAT]

You misquoted the situation I described. Here is the relevant section of my post: we have seen 11 tens and 23 non-tens-or-aces, and all 4 aces have been dealt.

You did seem to understand that 38 total cards have been dealt, but you then say that the 23 non-tens includes the 4 aces which does not add up to the right number of total cards.

To be clear, the 23 cards does NOT include the 4 aces.

38 cards have been dealt: 11 were tens, 4 were aces including the current dealer upcard, 23 were cards of 2-9 value.

Using the card tags you described in the first post of this thread, your current running count is +1, as I said. If you dispute this, then please explain how your count is different than what you initially described.

Whether your count is +1 (as I claim) or -3 (as you claim), either way you agree that your count indicates that you should not insure. That is incorrect. The remaining 14 cards include 5 tens. That's a nice player edge for betting the insurance bet, yet your "perfect insurance" count doesn't detect it. My problem with you is that one tiny change (a simplification even!) in your system DOES do perfect insurance correlation, yet you refuse to consider it.

Ken, you had wrote this and used my Ten Count to say, " Let's say we get a deeply dealt game and we have seen 11 tens and 23 non-tens-or-aces, and all 4 aces have been dealt.Your count here is +1. You have seen one extra ace, so you'll add one to that getting +2. Still not enough for your system to take insurance." My Ten Count here is at +1 (11 tens and 23 non tens excluding aces) and changed to +3 (1/4 deck count at 1/2 deck since 3/4 deck hasn't been reached yet) with the two extra aces, a good insurance bet, my bad.

 

[KenSmith]

My Ten Count here is at +1 (11 tens and 23 non tens excluding aces) and changed to +3 (1/4 deck count at 1/2 deck since 3/4 deck hasn't been reached yet) with the two extra aces, a good insurance bet, my bad.

Your "1/4 deck count at 1/2 deck since 3/4 deck hasn't been reached yet" comment is not comprehensible to me, but I understand that you are saying that 4 aces played with 14 cards left is treated as 2 extra aces. It looks like you are saying that whenever you are considering the number of extra aces, always round up.

JSTAT, Can you verify that this is your intention:

In the first quarter deck (1 to 12 cards seen), we expect to see no aces, so any aces seen are extra. This value can be from 0 to 4.

In the second quarter deck (13 to 25 cards seen), we expect 1 ace, so if we see more than 1, those are extra. This value can be from 0 to 3.

In the third quarter deck (26 to 38 cards seen), we expect 2 aces, so the extra aces value can be either 0, 1, or 2.

In the final quarter deck (39 or more cards seen), we expect 3 aces, so the extra aces value can be either 0 or 1.

Right?