is there any big differences, between these variations. i've been using 8 only thinking it might be a bit more precise, but now i'm thinking 789 might be more powerfull cause the highs only include 10s and aces. its bound to change decisions such as drawing on 12
It makes a difference.
Yes it does make a difference... counting 7, 8, 9 as 0 gives you a lower Playing Efficiency and ignores information that is relevant.
Counting the nine the same as a ten costs a lot in terms of Insurance Correlation, which more or less negates the increase in Playing Efficiency.
What we are doing here is comparing Hi-lo (7 & 9 not counted) to the Silver Fox, or Ito system (7 & 9 counted).
Sims give hi-lo a slight (read insignificant) edge in most games.
Some find having fewer cards to count makes it easier. Others find that counting more cards and being able to find more cancelling pairs) is easier.
It's really a matter of personal preference.
"Counting the nine the same as a ten costs a lot in terms of Insurance Correlation, which more or less negates the increase in Playing Efficiency."
Insurance is just one decision; you must look at the entire decision matrix to come to a conclusion. Also, by including the 7s on the other end somewhat negates the effect of counting 9s. Notwithstanding that, the actual true count index for insurance for the hi-low is about +3.4, which is truncated by the industry to +3. In silver fox the correct index number is +4.02, which can be rounded off accurately to +4. So someone who uses hi-low for their insurance decision will be insuring prematurely because they will be insuring the sliver between +3 and +3.4 when they should not be doing so, thereby costing them money in this situation.
Which count do you use??? I was thinking about the 8 equaling zero aswell.
The actual true count index for insurance for the hi-low is about +3.4, which is truncated by the industry to +3.
This is not true.The High-low insurance index for 6 decks is exactly 3.0.
It very much depends on the number of decks being only 1.4 for single deck and 3.1 for eight decks. For infinite decks it's 3.3.
Francis Salmon
It may not be of much interest, but I use the modified version of A0II, whereby the ace is assigned a value of -1 and the 5 is increased 50% to +3. I use the original matrix numbers and it works just fine. You could do better by simming the thing, but I don't think it would be worth it.
