Sidecounting Aces

[Jack_Black]

So going back to Aslan's question, let's say you were playing a 75% pen 6 deck S17 AC game.

How much higher would your EV be at say a TC of +1 if the running count was +5 with 5 decks remaining but you knew that only 2 aces had been used so far vs. 3 aces being used thus far? Aces are unquestionably more important than 10's.

It's pretty hard to use EV as a fair way to compare systems. Since EV increases can also come from bet unit sizes instead of just system comparisons, the results can be skewed. SCORE is a better way compare. But the example you are giving wouldn't give you much of an advantage.

I will agree with ZG that it is not that much of an advantage to know that there is one extra ace per 1/4 deck. But then again, there isn't that much of advantage to counting now, is there? Regardless, the advantage and purpose of ASC comes from being aware of being in an extreme situation of say 8 extra aces in the shoe. These situations are fairly common as well, perhaps about as frequent as getting a +12 TC shoe.

 

[Thunder]

Jack Black, I'm hoping you're being sarcastic because getting a +12 TC is quite rare.

 

[zengrifter]

Good point, along with what you said about the increased risk of dealer bust.

I said that. Do I look like a monkey, pal? zg

 

[zengrifter]

..even on the worst game without the Ace dependent good rules, it still shows a difference of 8 SCORE points between ASC and no ASC.

Sim for 1/4D ace-density estimation is misleading because of the inherent human inaccuracy. zg

 

[zengrifter]

I will agree with ZG that it is not that much of an advantage to know that there is one extra ace per 1/4 deck.

That is NOT my point. My point is that the reconcilliation of two counts tends to be such that, in actual play, you lose as much as you gain... and so work harder just to be where you already were without it, and deluded to boot that its easy and it works. zg

 

[aslan]

I said that. Do I look like a monkey, pal? zg

Je suis si désolé, mon frere; I knew it came from some intelligent source. I should have known.

 

[Jack_Black]

Sim for 1/4D ace-density estimation is misleading because of the inherent human inaccuracy. zg

Not sure why you chose the specific quote from me and gave this as the response.

and am I reading this post right? you're saying it's hard to estimate 13 cards? Is it really that hard to count out 13 cards and to keep the count?

maybe people keep assuming I'm talking about shoe games? 1/4 deck estimation for SD and DD is not hard at all.

 

[Jack_Black]

Jack Black, I'm hoping you're being sarcastic because getting a +12 TC is quite rare.

I don't play a lot of shoes. I play SD and DD and +12 in DD HO2 is not that rare. From the limited shoe experience I have, I still say that +12 TC is not rare. Maybe once every 5 hours?

 

[Jack_Black]

That is NOT my point. My point is that the reconcilliation of two counts tends to be such that, in actual play, you lose as much as you gain... and so work harder just to be where you already were without it, and deluded to boot that its easy and it works. zg

Ok, so I will go back to disagreeing with you. what a shame ZG, we see eye to eye on herbal remedies, but not AP remedies.

So you don't think that there is value in knowing the shoe is ace rich in certain situations? specifically the extreme cases of say, 7 extra aces with a flat TC? This is why and when PE will trump BE. having a better idea of what the actual cards are in the shoe plays to your advantage in these kind of situations. When you treat tens and aces as the same, you have obscured your advantage. Do you really think the value of an ace is the same value as a ten card? The value of each card, 2 through ace is different.

Different count systems arise to find a better balance between accuracy and practicality. The extremes being Thorp ultimate count, with a different tag for each card giving the best accuracy but worst possible practicality, or the opposite being the ace-5 count, giving you a slightly better than break even game.

back to aces and tens. Peter griffin states that the advantage of getting an ace in your first 2 cards is 52% vs. getting a ten is about......13%, I believe. someone else can google that or answer it. I gotta get to the bar.

 

[kewljason]

I don't play a lot of shoes. I play SD and DD and +12 in DD HO2 is not that rare. From the limited shoe experience I have, I still say that +12 TC is not rare. Maybe once every 5 hours?

What do you get 80 hands an hour? So that's 1 TC of +12 in 400 hands and you don't consider that rare? I don't see a TC of +12 even that often in shoe games. I would say when I do see a monster count like that I usually get a few shots at it. Usually two or three hands just before the shuffle but then I don't see another for several days.

 

[zengrifter]

So you don't think that there is value in knowing the shoe is ace rich in certain situations? specifically the extreme cases of say, 7 extra aces with a flat TC? This is why and when PE will trump BE.

Oh yes, we can agree. Therefore if you are going to apply a side-count enhancement and use 1/4D density assesment of a single card, go with the 7 and use a bivaluate adjusted playing strategy for the stiffs. This will blow the Ace count out of the water.

Still, just playing faster and longer trumps the Ace count-adjusted betting.

And also, ExCAA or Syph might tell you that you've got better things to be doing than to use all your concentration on the count. zg

 

[zengrifter]

So you don't think that there is value in knowing the shoe is ace rich in certain situations?

Oh absolutely. I heartedly recommend keeping an eye on the Aces.
Thats why I play the keycards at 1-2D. zg

 

[iCountNTrack]

I have posted this before and I will post it again. GOOD ace neutral counts such as Hi-Opt II and Advanced Omega II are not obsolete counting systems and they are excellent counts for pitch games. Contrary to what it is being said in many posts the 1/4D density method for side-counting aces for betting DOES work and works very well as the best simulations out there show(see Modern Blackjack) in fact it is shown that Hi-Opt II with an ace side count for betting is the bestest of counts especially for DD games at all rules and all penetrations. So as I said before if you primarily play pitch games and other advantage techniques are not applicable and if you think u have enough discipline and patience side counting acess wouldn't be such a bad idea.

 

[Jack_Black]

What do you get 80 hands an hour? So that's 1 TC of +12 in 400 hands and you don't consider that rare? I don't see a TC of +12 even that often in shoe games. I would say when I do see a monster count like that I usually get a few shots at it. Usually two or three hands just before the shuffle but then I don't see another for several days.

Exactly why I don't play shoes.

 

[Jack_Black]

Still, just playing faster and longer trumps the Ace count-adjusted betting.

And also, ExCAA or Syph might tell you that you've got better things to be doing than to use all your concentration on the count. zg

I don't see how playing longer would be considered trumping the ASC. Sounds like you're playing less efficiently. Work smarter not harder?

CAA would say to stop counting and start HCing.

 

[Gramazeka]

BC/PE/IC Count Analazer

Very very good product-

by Richard Reid. [Excel spreadsheet] In Version 3.1, the side count tag values can be varied and are independent of the primary count. It also incorporates the "Unbalanced True Count" concept by Brett Harris and can therefore be used with unbalanced counts. This version also incorporates an "Overall System Rating" for card counting system comparison.
Version 3.5 displays the Main+Side, Main-Side and Best values (per Chris C's recommendations).

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/efficien/eff.htm (Archive copy)