AOII vs. HOII Insurance

I've read that Hi-Opt II's better insurance correlation, when compared to Advanced Omega-II's, is because it doesn't count the nine. I'm guessing that this is solely because of situations (using AOII) like when the RC is say 7, then two nine's come up pushing the count down to 5 (and for simplicity's sake it's the very beginning of a single-deck game, so the TC is 5 also); So you should insure but you don't. Is this correct?? In other words, with Hi-Opt II you insure more often?
Thanks.

that the exact miniscule differences in correlation. Most players do not realize the many calculation true account adjustment errors in insurance determinations. For example; when playing a 6 deck game with 2 1/4 decks remaining and a very close call on insurance, how many times are you slightly wrong? Often. Simplicity is far more imporant when the correlations between individual counts are so close.

It does not involve true count conversion. Insure whenever the sum of the running count plus the number of aces seen exceeds four times the number of decks in play. For single deck the magic number is 5, for double it is 9, for six it is 25.

If the tags were rearranged from 11221100-20 to 11111111-20 then IC would be a perfect 100%.

Maybe it would be easier if we just multiplied Pi by the number of times the lunar equinox corresponds to the price of chili in Bolivia (minus the number of aces, of course)?

Insurance in Hi Opt 2 is inexact in close decisions and subject to small errors since you must adjust the running count and for the number of decks. Just compare your approach simultaneously with a 10 count which has a 100% correlation and you will see all the errors.

You have, of course, read Casino Holiday by Jacques Noir (Jack Black, get it?).
And what was the "point count" he described?
11111111-21?
Wasn't this the first unbalanced count?
Didn't this reappear as the Archer Method count and the count taught at the Stanley Roberts/Sludikof blackjack schools?
Doesn't this count give perfect insurance betting?
Isn't this because it indicates deflection of the NT/T ratio?
When this running count is exactly four, isn't the NT/T ratio exactly 2:1?
But only with a single deck in play?
Isn't the NT/T ratio exactly 2:1 when the running count is eight in the double deck game?
Wouldn't the NT/T ratio be exactly 2:1 with a running count of 24 in the six deck game?
Are not these NT/T ratios of 2:1 precisely determined by use of running count alone, obviating the need to employ a normalized count?
Cannot the same result, precisely determining when the NT/T ratio is 2:1, be accomplished by neutralizing the ace and keeping a separate count of aces seen?
Would not the running count added to the number of seen aces be precisely the same number as the running count in the first instance?
And does not this indicator of NT/T ratio yield the same perfect result regardless of depth of deck?
Is not the point where NT/T = 2:1 always determined by the number of decks in play and no other factor?

If you've followed me this far, you understand why running count + number of aces seen is a more reliable insurance indicator than a normalized count (the "true" count), even when the tags are modified by neutralizing the 8 & 9, and doubling the value of the 4 & 5.

If you haven't followed me, then I cannot help you.

My comment was about the ease of use concerning HO2. In a 6 deck game your ideas are hardly easy to use. A simpler 10 count is.

Instead of you reading Jacques Noir, I would suggest you consult Jacques Cousteau who would probably give less convoluted ideas!

In a 6 deck game your ideas are hardly easy to use.

I presented one idea, singular, which is easier, faster and has a higher IC than the alternative.

in fact I believe "Yukon Jack" may also agree with you on this.

I

This is an inserting post for those of you who use Ace side counts. The idea is quite simple, but very sound. You already have a side count of Aces, and you will count it as a low card (correctly) for insurance purposes. This makes your insurance count an unbalanced count. The insurance index is very close to the pivot; this means that you could make the insurance decision simply with the running count, avoiding any true count conversions.

I think your suggesting that the index is Pivotr+1. That sounds reasonable, but I have not done my own calculations to verify it.
At one time I studied a similar system for HiLo, where we kept a side count of Aces and used it for insurance, again with just a running count.

Some players track Aces by counting the number of unseen Aces. That is, in a DD game you start at 8 and then subtract for each Ace that falls. If so, then this is even easier. You simply compare Running Count to the number of Unseen Aces, + 1.

Sometime I can do some analysis to see how powerful this system is. I have some programs written that will do that, but they are in mothballs right now.

PS: It was Chappy�s posts that directed my attention to your post. Had it not been for him, I think I would have missed it. So this shows that even Trolls can play a useful role

Yukon Jack, I see you are back after your last humuliation (you remember, when you told everyone here that in today's game a person could come to Las Vegas and make $150,000 before having a problem). So now you want to call me a "troll". Gee, how desperate, what a surprise.

Regarding this you say: "That sounds reasonable, but I have not done my own calculations to verify it." You haven't "verified it" yet you want to chime in and insult me? That sounds just great.
Do you teach your students this type of logic at Yukon State?

My comment was that the ease of use was important in insurance determinations and that slight errors in close decisions with the counts in question often happen.

In case you haven't noticed to "Insure whenever the sum of the running count plus the number of aces seen exceeds four times the number of decks in play" is just another type of conversion. Furthermore, it does not take into account other non counted cards such as 2s, 7s, 8s, and 9s in High Opt 2 which affect the ten/non-ten insurance correlation. Changing the card values is just an additional conversion as well.

I now await the small band of droolers who will try to to defend you.

(For those wondering why I refer to him as "Yukon Jack" it is because of some of his prior statements indicate to me that he must rarely if ever come to Las Vegas from his outpost which may be somewhere in the Yukon).

You've been involved in the game how long?

Please respond by enumerating the tags of the Stepine count versus the Einstein count.

Don't know know who Stepine is? Check Epstein.

Don't know who Epstein is? Then click on my profile.

I just clicked on yours.

Long time LV resident and 21 player. Retired judge.

"Enumerate" this...

Your failed attempt to obscure the obvious is noted, typical, and as expected.

And revealing.

No one could help but suspect it, of course.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Al,

Would you please check the ip addresses of these two?

Thanks

For newcomers newer than Chappy, Chappy barged into this site badmouthing posters left and right. Do a search and see what I mean. He got a Green Chip membership and it was rescinded because he was deemed intolerable to the paying membership. Remarkably, mathprof and bootlegger both petitioned for his retention. Notice how grateful he is.

He is a self-declared, long-term expert in Las Vegas. Yet this is what he just posted:

In case you haven't noticed to "Insure whenever the sum of the running count plus the number of aces seen exceeds four times the number of decks in play" is just another type of conversion. Furthermore, it does not take into account other non counted cards such as 2s, 7s, 8s, and 9s in High Opt 2 which affect the ten/non-ten insurance correlation. Changing the card values is just an additional conversion as well.

#1. He has confused two point counts that have been extant since the sixties.

#2. He inverted the ten count ratio.

Now, maybe #2 was a typo. But a real player, especially one who's been around as long as he claims he has, knows that it's NT/T, the big number is the numerator.

Now if we combine his attitude, with #s 1 and 2, with the fact that he states that he is a retired judge (!?), into which category does the preponderance of evidence seem to place this individual: truthful observer or pompous fraud?

I just want so see whose sense matches mine.

All you can do is try to impress us with your ignorance.

The TRUTH regarding your green chip allegations is quite evident. All Stanford Wong has to do is open the pages for everyone to read for themselves. He won't as I believe it would embarass all the whiners. It appears to me that he made a business decision choosing to protect the weeny crowd as they outnumber me. His email to me mentions his interest in "selling green chips" and says nothing about doing what is right.

Back to your sandbox.

There have been very few people who have been expelled from Green Chip in all its years. One of these is Chappy, another was Ignacio. Piui was another. I can�t remember any more, but there have been some.

It should not be surprising that the two people who have been expelled for cause have a mutual admiration and support society.

However, I strongly believe that they are different people. Ignacio is from our part of the country (i.e. the Yukon). I have no reason to doubt that Chappy is from LV.

I appreciated the posts that you have put up on this and other boards. Try to let Chappy get to you. I don�t think you need to respond to his posts. He has no other consistency other than Ignacio.

But I do remember once when someone voluntarily left for cause you chimed in and said you would have "torn him up" in a debate concerning history, something to that affect, but then again never even attempted it while he was engaged. You did wait till that poster was gone to make the threatening claim. Your behavior at that time dissapointed me.

Of course I do have the highest regard for your playing skills and BJ knowledge.

I do think you should give Chappy credit as he certainly seems to know what he is talking about. Your attempts at humiliating him are somewhat childish for a man your age.

I

Just another lame attempt by you to leave out the main facts. The facts are that I was not banned for anything I said about 21. For some reason you want to discuss this, so let's.

I was banned because I spoke up for the conservative viewpoint on the Politics page without getting politically correct, pre approval for my comments from the PC mob's weeny committee (they, of course, were free to insult me with anything they wanted with no such speech requirement). It appears that free speech only applies if they agree with you. I regularly challenged the Blame America First contingent. I believe the PC weenies first became enraged when I mentioned the obvious fact that the only people upset with America's progress against terrorism were the terrorists and most liberals. I also complained about their PC ideology being Marxist (that would be Groucho).

For some "reason" we don't see members of the PC mob being ejected.

Stanford could still could expose all this by letting everyone read those pages. I think he doesn't want to embarass you.

repeat itself.

Chappy, as we have seen since "911", our freedoms ARE under attack.

You were on a paid "Politics" page defending America and freedom and you are given the "Jack Boot".

In a way, Chappy, you should be honored. True patriots have a hard road to travel.

I