Dog Shit Cake count.

Single Deck straight up strategy. I'm still working out the details on doubling 10,11,vs3,4,5,6, hitting 16v10 and 12v4,13v2,3,4 14vs2,3.
I can't present on argument against Ralph Strickers style of setting the bar high on 12v4 an 13v2,3 and always standing on 13v4,14v2,3.

It's costly to Always stand on 16v10 as some say is a prudent move. Hitting at -1.5 equates to always standing on the first hand.

The idea of doubling in a high negative count has never appealed to me. I read somewhere the dealer bust rate with 5 or 6 up around 42% of the time. This indicates to me he doesn't bust 58% of the time. I would think that number would increase as the count decreases. So, in a negative count, I'm doubling my investment to likley receive a small card and then hope the dealer busts which is less likely since they only have to reach 17. I've got to get a 6 with 11 or 7 with 10 to reach 17. What is wrong with this picture?

The four game changing stages in a percentage count are 50%, 57.14%, 60%, 66.67%. So an RC -3 (43% to 47% range) make cover it all. I have to do some research first. I find it odd that we hit 16 wanting/expecting a small card - yet double on 10,11 wanting/expecting a large card. It seems the happy medium is around RC -3 (43% to 47% range).

Under a similar notion, I double v 9,10,A with the count used for insurance decision at 57.14 to 60% high cards remaining. We think there is a 10 in the hole vs A when we insure. We hope to get a 10 when we double. Except on 10 vs 10,A as it really comes down to how many Aces remain.

This serves as notes to myself before I begin research. I appreciate/value your input.

Use the same parameters that were used to generate the Wong Halves indices. That would keep everything equal.

T3 writes:

Moses replies: The only difference was 14v10. I believe it was TC 2 instead of 3 if I remember correctly. My sim was single straight up. Truncate both. 2 hands at 3 units each at TC 2. 4 units each at 2.5 TC. One could slide in a 1 bet hand at 2 or 3 units at TC 1.5. I went 63.5%, 6 rounds fixed or instead of fixed and.

Now you can get a little higher SCORE by starting with Wong Halves and reducing the 3 to .5 and increasing the 7 to 1. However, you back to counting 4 different 1/2 point tags 2,3,5,9. On DSC it's only 5 and 9. I also clicked the insurance box for perfect insurance. As I remember the difference was at least 15%.

I like the ease of the count and use it when I'm not sure about a dealers pen. I stay with a column count for the dealers going 7 rounds or two hands on round 6.

BC and betting accuracy are two different things. SCORE has to do with the square of EV to variance ratio. You need to do the sims to see whether the BC/PE/IC stats translates into higher SCORE.

T3 writes:

Moses replies: Yes this is a common assumption. Too bad it weren't true. Norm and Don could close up shop and the whole world would employ wong halves. There are some very strange BC/PE allocations that represent a SCORE in the upper echelon of comparisons.

Freightman,

Thanks for chiming in!

The parameters I need are these:

1. Is the TC floored, rounded, or truncated?
2. I know the TC denominator is full decks remaining, but are the remaining decks estimated to the nearest full deck, half deck, quarter deck, or exact card?
3. Are the indexes EV-maximizing or Risk Averse? If the latter, what bet spread should be used?

Dog Hand writes ^;


Moses replies: Since Mr. Freighter said in another post he is not really a Sim guy, let me help you out. Figure indexes I18 minus splitting 10s vs 5,6. But include 14v10 as it's a crucial index in pitch games. Perhaps just run an index generation on both counts. It takes maybe 15 minutes each.

Resolution Exact. Truncate deck estimate and True count Division.

I would figure $25 min bet. Midwest Players said he spreads 1 to 8. Why the hell he is interested in a 50% pen sim is beyond me. He's got a better chance of winnning a game of picking up sticks with his butt cheeks. Think about it. 104 cards. You see 52 and a shuffle with 2 other players. Of course, I'd drive 1/2 way across state to get a piece of the action. Sherwd!. My hindarts wouldn't sit down at less than 60% pen and that would only be on a ten minute commute.

Midwest Player. I know you check in here from time to time. They never did run the sim over at BJTF. What happened?

It would be nice if Don S (the voice of reason) would clear up SCORE vs BC, PE, IC. I "think" Don S position is they should go away entirely in lieu of SCORE. IF not, or it would be nice if he would set some barometers for the purpose of SIMS with BC,PE, IC in relation to SCORE. For instance, the ever popular HiLO is 970 BC, 511 PE, 760 IC. Should this be this base? IF not, one can come up with some wild BC, PE, IC on a SIM in order to achieve a higher SCORE.

Maybe do a poll? This would create quite a discussion between T3 and Don S. No?

What about the 6? The general theory seems to be related to the odds of the dealer busting. However, the dealer doesn't make a move until the players hand in completed.

So, a deck rich is 6's is a problem of getting a 10,6 or 9,6 on a large bet. There number cards to break outnumber the cards to improve this hand to begin with. Now, on a large bet, it's even worse. Giving the 6 the same value as 5 1.5 would help solve this problem. But where do you add a 1/2 point to the other side in order to balance. The 8, 9, or A?