Sidecounting aces

Ferretnparrot

Ferretnparrot

Well-Known Member
I have been using hi/lo for years, im quite content, but last week I found myself sidecounting the number of rounds dealt at parx, and realised anywhere else in the world I could be sidecounting aces.

So I want to move the point value from to count the ace seperate and move the point to the "9" and use that as my new system. casue it will be easy enough to transition, I just need new index numbers

How do you gauge the change in HE/ROI based on the known remaining aces in the deck(s)?

What is the EV per additional ace in a deck? Is it a linear change as you add more aces? How beneficial is it when you have 2 aces additional in 4 decks?

Where do I even find this information about ace sidecounting?
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Ferret, how many indices do you currently use in HiLo?
What games do you primarily play?

---------------

In the 70s one of the more popular counts was the Revere Advanced Plus-Minus.
Revere improvised it in response to Humbles HO1, and likewise recommended a 1/4D Ace-density adjustment for betting only.

RAPM 2-A
11111 00 -1-1 0

He advocated it for 1-2D only. I used it at his direction for 1.5 years, untill I switched to HO2.

It is now as obsolete as HO1.
 
Last edited:
S

salsa4ever

Member
zengrifter said:
He advocated it for 1-2D only. I used it at his direction for 1.5 years, untill I switched to HO2.

It is now as obsolete as HO1.
Click to expand...
Zen, I was under the impression that HO1 + side count aces was one of the strongest systems for its difficulty, especially for fewer deck games.

Are you saying HO1 + ace count is obsolete? and if so, what is the system that dominates it?
 
kewljason

kewljason

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Better off with HiLo and use MORE indices, especially in 1-2D games. zg
Click to expand...
I have seen you advocate MORE indices a few times Zg, How much is that really worth? I use a few more than 18, I guess about 30. Since I don't play many negative hands I don't need many negative indices. Anything more going in the positive direction is just worth so little and happens sooo infrequently, how much are they really worth?
 
T

tthree

Banned
Every time you lose a max bet using BS because you didnt think the extreme index was worth it that was one you might have won.

The system you propose is called revere plus minus. Look up the indices.
 
kewljason

kewljason

Well-Known Member
tthree said:
Every time you lose a max bet using BS because you didnt think the extreme index was worth it that was one you might have won.

The system you propose is called revere plus minus. Look up the indices.
Click to expand...
OMG! Are we basing things on short term results? :laugh:

If you stand on your 13 vs the dealer ten because the index for such a play is +22 (I am guess, just for example sake, so don't jump on me for not knowing the stand 13 vs 10 index) and you win that hand because the dealer flips a 6 and busts, it doesn't mean the value of that play was whatever your wager was at that time. The value of that play is still, tenths, hundreths, maybe thousanths of a penny on a dollar. We determine the value of a play by longterm results. Millions of hands, not a single hand.
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
Pragmatically speaking, the functional "value" of basic strategy departure indices is inversely proportional to the number of decks being used.

The greater the number of decks the less "power" one can obtain from altering their playing strategy; and vice versa.

If you play a shoe game with PERFECT bet-sizing and just a few indices, that is much better than playing with sloppy bet-sizing and several hands full of indices; but in a pitch game you could ramp your bets as simply Very High, High, Medium, Low and if the penetration is good and the rules are inviting, do great IF you have an entire raft of indices, especially if the count employed has a Playing Efficiency between .60 and .67 e.g. Hi-Opt II
 
T

tthree

Banned
:eek:
kewljason said:
OMG! Are we basing things on short term results? :laugh:

If you stand on your 13 vs the dealer ten because the index for such a play is +22 (I am guess, just for example sake, so don't jump on me for not knowing the stand 13 vs 10 index) and you win that hand because the dealer flips a 6 and busts, it doesn't mean the value of that play was whatever your wager was at that time. The value of that play is still, tenths, hundreths, maybe thousanths of a penny on a dollar. We determine the value of a play by longterm results. Millions of hands, not a single hand.
Click to expand...
My point was we are talking about a max bet. Dont you want to win as many as possible. Big affect on variance. The swing is 2*max bet. I dont want to needlessly drop 2 max bets if I dont have to:eek:. Maybe thats just me but isnt that the kind of thing that increases negative variance while decreasing positive variance:cry:. Not a good plan. I'll do the extra work and decrease my RoR.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
kewljason said:
I have seen you advocate MORE indices a few times Zg, How much is that really worth? I use a few more than 18, I guess about 30. Since I don't play many negative hands I don't need many negative indices. Anything more going in the positive direction is just worth so little and happens sooo infrequently, how much are they really worth?
Click to expand...
Frequency wise per hour, little... BUT in that moment where the opp presents itself, they are valuable. Like standing on 14 vs 9, for example. Some of this borders on the subjective. But I do believe that the OP was inferring 2D games. zg
 
T

tthree

Banned
kewljason said:
OMG! Are we basing things on short term results? :laugh:

If you stand on your 13 vs the dealer ten because the index for such a play is +22 (I am guess, just for example sake, so don't jump on me for not knowing the stand 13 vs 10 index) and you win that hand because the dealer flips a 6 and busts, it doesn't mean the value of that play was whatever your wager was at that time. The value of that play is still, tenths, hundreths, maybe thousanths of a penny on a dollar. We determine the value of a play by longterm results. Millions of hands, not a single hand.
Click to expand...
In case you are slow to see the significance of your large bets indices to other more frequently used indices. It depends on your spread. If you spread 1 to 12. If the small bet is made 10 times more frequently than the large bet the large bets index is more significant.

Each time the large bet is played it affects 12 units of betting in the same amount of time you make 10 one unit bets for the small bet affecting 10 betting units. The large bet affects 2 more betting units in the same amount of time. Learn your large TC indices they are that important!!!!!!
 
T

tthree

Banned
You seem to know hilo so you are probably right but thats what the reference material Im looking at calls it. It has a huge drop in BC against HILO but a huge increase in PE. That makes it HILO for shoe games and Revere advanced plus minus for pitch games. That is if you dont go ace neutral with ace side count which would be better for both than both of them. I can read charts.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
zengrifter said:
Frequency wise per hour, little... BUT in that moment where the opp presents itself, they are valuable. Some of this borders on the subjective. But I do believe that the OP was inferring 2D games. zg
Click to expand...
I think I just made Kewl's case for his side-counting Aces in HiLo at 2D, oops!

Trust me boys and girls, more indices and playing a little faster and a little longer, is up to several times more extra gain than side counting Aces for bet adjustment.

Keying Aces in 2D is another story - simple Ace key-zoning is easier, more accurate, and more interesting. zg
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
tthree said:
You seem to know hilo so you are probably right but thats what the reference material Im looking at calls it. It has a huge drop in BC against HILO but a huge increase in PE. That makes it HILO for shoe games and Revere advanced plus minus for pitch games. That is if you dont go ace neutral with ace side count which would be better for both than both of them. I can read charts.
Click to expand...
I don't know, something is off.
Revere Plus Minus IS HiLo.
Revere Advanced Plus Minus is a HiLo / HiOpt conflation. zg

Ps - HiLo lends well to the bivaluate 7s count, which blows away the RAPM Ace count.
 
T

tthree

Banned
HiILO and lack of bivaluate count comparison charts

zengrifter said:
I don't know, something is off.
Revere Plus Minus IS HiLo.
Revere Advanced Plus Minus is a HiLo / HiOpt conflation. zg

Ps - HiLo lends well to the bivaluate 7s count, which blows away the RAPM Ace count.
Click to expand...
I really meant it when I said I believe you. The chart maker may have felt he didnt have room for advanced in the column. But if there is another count with that name he should have included some abbreviation for advanced. The inclusion of the 9 as a card equivalent to the ten has its costs for RAPM. It hurts the IC and BC but HILO already includes the ace so it has the same IC. If the OP is really considering switching I would recommend HIOPT I side counting aces for level 1 counts but I like the ace neutral counts.

The ace side count wouldnt be as powerful to increase the BC with the nines included. Not enough charts include bivaluate counting when comparing systems. I think a lot of people dont see how powerful the benefit is. I have never seen a chart that included side counting sevens. I would love to see one if you have a link. My problem with HILO is the weak PE if a seven side count makes it competitive with other counts that only have ten value cards as minus point cards you can boost your argument for HILO in my eyes. Still have an IC that could use improving but that is small potatoes compared to the need to bolster the PE.
 
Last edited:
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
Thinking that a 10−1 betting ramp means that you play your Max bet 1/10 as often as … is completely mistaken.

You cannot assume proportional linearity between metrics.

You need to take a look at a chart of True Count Frequency and then trim
that down to the indices you will actually play' i.e. ignore TC −4 and worse,
and those that hardly occur such as +18
 
T

tthree

Banned
FLASH1296 said:
Thinking that a 10−1 betting ramp means that you play your Max bet 1/10 as often as … is completely mistaken.

You cannot assume proportional linearity between metrics.

You need to take a look at a chart of True Count Frequency and then trim
that down to the indices you will actually play' i.e. ignore TC −4 and worse,
and those that hardly occur such as +18
Click to expand...
I had done that but used more aggressive wonging to see how far off I was. It was close but hard to quantify. Just a hypothetical to make sure they understood that large but infrequent bets have significance from size that offsets to some unspecified degree the infrequency of its use. Other factors like how big is the advantage gain and how fast advantage grows after you reach the index threshold are important considerations in specific examples. There arent that many high indices why be lazy.
 
Ferretnparrot

Ferretnparrot

Well-Known Member
I use all indexes applicable to TCs of 9 and lower, I dont actually know how many it is. and I play shoe games.

I was noticing that it was similar to the canfield system, but in actuality i dont see any point spreads with that layout im goign to start using once i get the indexes for it

OK I see so it is the RAPM, what book outlines that system?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top