Freighter. A thread worth reading at Bjtf. Fine Work

[Moses]

I'm finally beginning to understand your bet ramping system. But I will have to talk in terms of percentages.

At 57.14% 9-10-A tags remaining to be played vs 3-7s tags. You are just starting to gain an advantage. This is around 1.5 TC. Now at 59% rounded, you are running in the 1.75 to 2.17 TC. Hence, a good spot for an increased one hand bet. If large are dealt? You are in a sweet spot to win, insure, double down, or split. If smalls come out? This will put you above 60% or 2.5 to 3.5 TC the next hand. Hence, a great spot to go 2 hands.

I agree. The target is moving between 60% to 65%. So your 2 hand bet amount isn't as crucial and can be used to keep EITS off balance. But this NOT a strategy for those with weak stomachs or entitlement issues.

But at 67% and up which is TC4. It's "brace yourself Effie" time. It's going to hurt them alot more than it is you. So it's time to lay the wood to the fire as these opportunities are rare. You get my drift. No?

[Moses]

Freighter. I truly believe it's worth it to have Gronbog run some Sims comparing Wong Halves to Moses half halves.

Everyone wants to add more confusion to make more money. Here is a way to make more money with less effort and confusion.

[Moses]

Jack Jackson said:
Today 09:16 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
JJackson
What does WH stand for. You’ve asked some good questions, and I would like to answer them all together. Just up for a few minutes, back to bed, so it will be a while b4 I respond.
Wong Halves. I was just accepting the challenge. Anyway.
http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi


Sharky said:
Today 09:40 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
... Can anyone determine FBM ASC Advanced underlying theory?....
either that freighty has too much time on his hands? or that he enjoys playing "pocket pool"?


Freightman said:
Today 09:54 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Jack Jackson View Post
Wong Halves. I was just accepting the challenge. Anyway.
I’ll be at my satellite office (Starbucks) in about a half hour or so. I’ll get you back on course


Freightman said:
Today 11:27 AM
Response to Jack Jackson
My comments after your question or statement

Im not sure if your ramp is based on your edge though..It almost seems as if your just using a fancy betting spread/strategy, just not sure.

Each Ramp is sufficient to win on its own. Each ramp has an edge taking deck pen into consideration, taking constraints as listed in OP into account. Not in OP are chip up chip down styles designed to make me look like a progression bettor. Part of Of the upper and lower ramp strategy makes you look like a poor deck estimator (can’t hide the fact that you’re counting). ExampLe would be lower to upper ramp increasing bet while count decreases.

Nevertheless, i could speculate here and say your using the upper ramp using the middle cards to increase your chance at blackjack. Also since i side count Aces already myself ive seen a million times a good positive count only to have a surplus of Aces Played justify a 1unit bet. And sure enough i pull that XX on a 1 unit bet.

From your description, it’s almost certain to me that you’re using an Ace Neutral System, possibly hi opt 2. I play halves ace reckoned. I’ll generally be at or close to proper true count. Point is, will I be on lower or upper ramp. That’s determined by group proportions. On the contrary, it’s a shortage of intermediate cards that will put me in the upper ramp, which as a matter of certainty, does increase blackjacks, but not close to the sole reason that I’ll be on the upper ramp. Just as High true count doubles and splits will increase chances of success versus low true count doubles and splits - identical true counts with a lower proportion of intermediates will enjoy a higher success rate than the identical true count with a higher proportion of intermediates. Your question really is the crux of QTC, which I’ll put in a separate post, the logic being plain as day once explained.

So maybe, and i might be speculating here, but you could possibly be using one ramp for blackjacks and the other for QTC i dont know..

No, QTC is a function of high to intermediate to low cards. Shortage of intermediates improves QTC. Will be explained in separate post.

But in Nut Shell, are you suggesting a dual ramp with WH against Multiple Decks and side counting the middle cards too? Gonna be tough!

Essentially, yes, but with a twist. The dual ramp itself is easy to manage. Intermediate density Calc is tough, used to be really tough, if not impossible when first looking at ways of doing this. This is what determines upper or lower ramp. It’s simplified somewhat. Think I’ll put that in that other post as well.


Freightman said:
Today 12:16 PM
Easiest way to demo QTC, think single deck. Use Hi Lo. Think exactly 26 cards left, RC =5, TC = 10.
High, intermediate and Low cards remaining, in that order, all equating to True 10

5,20,0 = true 10, do u really want your max bet out here? It is true 10 after all, or is it?
6,18,1 = true 10
7,16,2 = true 10
8,15,3 = true 10
9,12,4 = true 10
10,11,5 = true 10
11,8,6 = true 10
12,6,7 = true 10
13,4,8 = true 10
14,2,9 = true 10
15,1,10 = true 10

Now, for tracking intermediates.
Running Count and True Counts are absolutely automatic for most of us. To keep a number plus minus for intermediates would make your head explode. I don’t count intermediates - I letter them, tantamount to the same thing. However, I don’t use a plus minus on them. Simply maintain a cumulative letter approach, avoids mixing up whether the number of hi, lo, or intermediate.

Now, think again single deck, utilizing hi lo - 20 high, 16 intermediate, 16 low. Since I’m only concerned with intermediate for now, letters a thru p represent 1 thru 16 cards.

Now, you’re in A 6 deck shoe, and you’ve reached p. Your second deck equivalent of intermediates is 2a thru p, then 3a.

When the need arises, and I’m at 1c, that’s 1x16+3= 19 intermediates counted. Divide by decks remaining and compare to your high ratio.

And btw, if it’s looking shitty, just relax and stay in the lower ramp.


Freightman said:
Today 12:23 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
either that freighty has too much time on his hands? or that he enjoys playing "pocket pool"?

Clearly you’ve missed the best part. See if you can reason it out. I’ve spent the last couple if days working on this theory.

Sharky: Freighter makes some good points. It's not how hard you can swat but how well can you duck. Now in single/double deck, without deep pen, you won't get enough viable opportunities to put the columns to good use. A great deal of hands are played between RC 2 and -2. At that point, it's anyone's guess at what the next card will be. So, without a large spread, it's very difficult to capitalize on strong deck compositions. There simply isn't enough quality opportunities . Trust me, I've spent a little more than a couple days on this.

[Moses]

Freighter writes: Card Counting Systems measure ratio of hi to low cards. Little attention is paid to intermediate cards. Simulations do not distinguish the impact of intermediate density on results - they are simply a part of the whole.

Norm writes.
That's not quite true. The 8 is not included in the RC, nor the 7 and/or 9 in many level 1 strategies. But, they effect TC's, and therefore index calculations.

Moses writes: Just because they are not included in the calculation doesn't mean they don't exist. So it's a matter of assigning tag values to get the best SCORE or having a strong stomach to ride the roller coaster that comes with simplicity. So what can you live without?

For me, it's the 2 and the 8. I don't agree with Mr Griffins EoR as a basis for assigning tags for counting. I do agree with Don S development of SCORE. Two completely different animals.

Level 1 gives the same weight to the 2 as the 5? And no weight to the 7? C'mon Maan. That sells books and seminar schools but doesn't win money.

So please don't tell me I need to read more books. They are just another version of the same. You need to have more discussion on deck compositions.

[Moses]

Freighter. That's the nifty thing with Wong Halves. All cards are assigned a tag except the 8. No need to side count the 8. Suppose you have 14 with a large bet out. The 8 will bust your hand. The 2 only gets you to 16.

The best a 2 can do it take a 16 to 18. So, even in a column count, the 2 and 8 are flies in the ointment.

A column count will reduce getting those pesky 14s, 15s, and 16s. But the bet frequency is so low to get strong deck compositions that a limited spread creates a long process to make money. You must get in and get out quick in order to play straight up nowadays. So Moses half halves is more efficient.

But man, when one stops accounting for the 7,8,9s. That creates a big mess in the intermediate cards.

[Moses]

Freighter writes: 3 minute mark of Rainman link, nobody can count down a 6 deck shoe, so who can count down intermediates?

Moses writes: I'd pit my counting skills against almost anyone. I can remember column and percentages in a single or double deck in my sleep. Quite often, I do.
But a 6 deck shoe? I doubt it. Tarzan claims to have this skill. I wouldn't bet against him.

I could do many things with a basketball because of my work ethic. But I couldn't dunk on a 12 foot rim. Maybe Tarzan can. Maybe that is how he got the name?

[Moses]

Freighter writes: You continue to harp on halves being a difficult level 3 count. It is a SIMPLE level 3 count. Halves (Basic) does have poor PE and IC, not hugely significant in a shoe game, however adding FBM ASC Basic allows for significant improved strategy and playing decisions for shoe, and turns Halves FBM ASC Basic into a formidable pitch game system.

Moses writes: In hockey, one might say "what the puck is so difficult about level 3"? The difficult part doesn't come from assigning the 5 a 1.5 tag value. It comes from also having the 2 and 7 at .5 and 9 at -.5. The imbalance is the hidden difficulty. So, reduce the 2 to 0 and increase the 7 to 1. This cuts the number of half point tags in half from 4 to 2. Plus there is no need to side count the 7. Simple is as simple does. And provides a higher SCORE in single deck. The different rules across the board might reflect different results. But still outperforms Level 1 counts significantly. A grown adult, able to drive a car, buy a house, go to movies, etc can't count 5 as 1.5 and 9 as -.5? C'mon maaan!

[Moses]

Big player writes;, ASC's IMHO aren't usually worth the effort except in pitch games.

Moses writes: Really? Do tell. I wouldn't mind hearing Don S opinion as well.

21forme writes: Way too much wheel reinventing (and spinning) here lately.

Moses writes: Freighter is playing Wong Halves with ASC. That isn't reinventing the wheel. His betting scheme is complex. But the idea is to read idea's and considering adding an element of that concept to your game. That is how to improve. It is a blackjack forum. No?

My idea is simplicity. Instead of taking 3 away from the middle as in Hi LO. Take one away from the middle (8) and one from the little (2). I ran a sim again yesterday and it outperformed Wong Halves for single deck with my rules. That being said, it might be worth comparing Sims for your count at your game and rules.

[Moses]

bj analyst writes: My prediction is that HL w 5m9c will approximately tie Wong's Halves from CC comparisons.

I have been correct around 20 times so for with sim results based on my CC comparisons and I am sure I will be correct again.

Just keep the HL and add the 5m9c side count instead of switching to Wong's Halves.

Moses writes: I doubt it. You are still giving 1 to the 2 and 0 to the 7. Halves gives 1/2 to both. How is side counting the 5 and 9 on HiLo going to be simpler than Halves? You have to account for 3 sets of numbers instead of 1. No?

[Moses]

...and no one won. Reading that thread was like watching a monkey trying to boink a football.

Norm had some good input with a red 7 and red 2 idea. Hence, a level one version of RPC. Freighter provided some decent insight for the player who can count to two. Um...one. Crap. What's the next number?

A red 2 and red -9 would be close to Wong Halves with 3-7 counted as one.

[Blitzkrieg]

...and no one won. Reading that thread was like watching a monkey trying to boink a football.

Norm had some good input with a red 7 and red 2 idea. Hence, a level one version of RPC. Freighter provided some decent insight for the player who can count to two. Um...one. Crap. What's the next number?

A red 2 and red -9 would be close to Wong Halves with 3-7 counted as one.

What's up Moses?

[Moses]

Nice to hear from you Blitzer. Hope all is well.

Mr Freighter. I will give credit where it's due. Okay, the 2 is worth consideration. However, tweaking your Wong Halves by switching the tag value of the 3 and 7 has a tremendous upside in the single deck game. A BC of 980 and PE 576. Side count the Ace is easy peasy and you could do the 9 to increase insurance. I think you once told me that.

[Moses]

The game has changed once again with Covid. So get in- get paid - get out has never been more important. I stand more than normal on 15, 16 vs. 7 8 9 10 A. The percentages of hitting are very slim. Thus I can't take bad shots. Meaning - losing a hend with a ten when it would be the first card to start my next hand.

The next project to complete and compare by years end is a tweaking of Silver Fox. Tag the 5 at 1.5 and 2 at .5 results in a 971 BC and 561 PE. Side count the Ace to increase to -1.5 and 9 reduce to -.5 offers a BC of 987.

The column count requires deep pen and straight up play longevity at the table. Both were rare and even moreso now.

Still read and always enjoy your, Don S and Bosox gems and words of wisdom. If Tarzan, Frank, Gronbog. T3 or others have comments post here or other places or you have my email.

[Blitzkrieg]

Nice to hear from you Blitzer. Hope all is well.

Mr Freighter. I will give credit where it's due. Okay, the 2 is worth consideration. However, tweaking your Wong Halves by switching the tag value of the 3 and 7 has a tremendous upside in the single deck game. A BC of 980 and PE 576. Side count the Ace is easy peasy and you could do the 9 to increase insurance. I think you once told me that.

Everything is well Moses and I hope everything is going good for you. I've been real lazy lately and have been adding to my game collection, buying coins, and taking care of the family. Other than that I've been staying out of the casinos and it's sad because there is a newer casino close to me that opened up several months ago in 2020.

[Moses]

Hey Blitzer:

Glad to hear you are well. Lots of changes in my life since the covid thing hit. I haven't bet a game in almost a year and don't know when/if I will.

Just starting to play some blackjack again. But on a very limited basis. I go into casinos when they are not busy and stay home when full. I was doing that anyway.