From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: query on ace side count
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:37:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.085215.1@skcla.monsanto.com> karp@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.095454.1@skcla.monsanto.com> karp@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>>
>>>I've heard mention of multi parameter counting many times and ace side counts
>>>in particular.  My question is:  How do you use the ace side count to calculate
>>>1) a. advantage ?
>>
>>Depends on the particular counting system.
>>
>>Michael Hall            \You're using Hi-Opt I + ace side count on an 8 deck
>
>
>Michael - I did say red seven earlier in the post.

No you didn't.  I hate to requote the whole thing, but...

|Hello all:
|
|This lurker is finally breaking down and going to admit his ignorance.
|
|This is a black jack counting query so for those not interested press 'N'
|now:
|
|
|I've heard mention of multi parameter counting many times and ace side counts
|in particular.  My question is:  How do you use the ace side count to calculate
|1) a. advantage ?
|   b. how large a bet should be made (kelly or otherwise) ?
|2) when you should take insurance ?
|
|This inquiring mind would like to know.
|
|
|Jeffery
|Karp@skcla.monsanto.com
|
|PS Boy, I'm sorry I missed the BARGE.  Is S. Jacobs still taking donations?

>And I wouldn't be
>want to do the conversion from hi-opt1 even if I knew hi-opt1.  I can be a 
>math weenie and I am fair at statistics but if the works been done, this is
>one case where I'd rather not redo it.  
>
>In red seven, aces are part of the main count!

The adjustment works the way I described, though you'll be doing the
adjustment for strategy and insurance instead of betting.  Aces should
be counted as 0 (or maybe +1/2) for strategy and as +1 (?) for insurance,
but Red 7's counts them as -1.  Therefore, for each excess used ace,
add 1 (or maybe 1.5) to the running count for the purpose of strategy, and
maybe 2 for the purpose of insurance (and this will change the proper
insurance threshold.)  I've never heard of this being done for an
unbalanced count, so I don't have the exact numbers for you to use for
Red 7's; I think it would work, but the thing is you have to estimate
the number of decks remaining, and if you could do that, then 
you might as well compute the true count for a balanced count like High-Low.

High-Low is the same count as Red 7's, except that all 7's are counted as 0,
and it uses a true count.  Although it is a bit harder than Red 7's and its
betting correlation is a bit lower, my guess is that in terms of return on
investment High-Low is better.  (As I recall, JJ's simulations supported
this.)  Betting correlation measures the ability to spot favorable deck
compositions, not the degree of favorability, and my feeling is that the
true count gives you a better measure of the favorability than an
unbalanced count would.  (I cite "Jacko" here.)  Because of this, High-Low
should give you more expected value for less variance.  But Red 7's is a
surprisingly good system for its simplicity, which you shouldn't be too
eager to wreak.

-- 
Michael Hall            \ "Advantage is irrelevant.
NASA Ames Research Center\  Countermeasures are futile."
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \  -Borg card counter