The full Lima count system is now available via direct link from the CCCafe homepage, courtesy of Ted Forrester,for those of you who requested full indices for this system. Ted also published win rates indicating that the system is okay as a compromise over a range of conditions but does not outperform the specialized systems for specific types of games.
nt
nt
Alienated incidentally devised the indices for the count and deserved all the credit on this interesting system, which squares the circle of optimal level-1 systems for BC, IC and now PE.
So, in your system you have a very good PE and IC but a very poor BC. How do you compensate for this? Do you use a secondary count like (A,2)?
PE = 0.618 (S17) | 0.783 (H17)
IC = 0.872
BC = 0.885
Regards,
Tim
Pete Moss. I don't understand why has John May put it in his book with the name of LIMA COUNT. Was he authorised by Pete Moss?
Just Curious
Tim
Count tags are just information. Any one can discover them and no one can copyright them. You can call them what you want. For example, Canfield and Bryce Carlson both sold the same count system under the name of "Expert" and "Advanced Omega II".
I can't remember if Pete wrote about this system or not. I think he may have recommended it for use with another system (simultaneous counts were Pete's big thing). But if he did he probably wasn't the first. And its unlikely Pete's indices would have matched Ted's in any case so they are not the same system in any case.
Incidentally, all balanced commercial count systems should properly be credited to Peter Griffin who discovered them all first.
where you got the idea from? Was it Pete Moss mentioned anywhere? Or you just have discovered the count yourself?
BTW, Here is my NEW count: I call it SUPER-TIM and these are the tags (A-T): -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1. It's similar to Hi-Lo but it is not since I changed one index.
Regards,
Tim
John May has invented every significent development (or provided the inital influence) of every advantage play method developed in the past 50 years.
Just ask him.
where you got the idea from? Was it Pete Moss mentioned anywhere? Or you just have discovered the count yourself?
Any one who understands simple linear algebra can determine those tags as the optimal level-1 unbalanced system. I did not get the idea from Pete. If Pete wants to claim credit for the system I am more than happy to credit him, but since I have never recommended using the system nor created indices for it it seems pointless.
An old friend of mine, we started BJ together at the same time, and played quite a bit together. I recall how excited he was when he discovered his "system," he called me up and gave me his argument about it being the best this and that. If he did not invent it, he certainly re-discovered it himself and did all the work there was to do on it himself.
--Eliot
I recall how excited he was when he discovered his "system," he called me up and gave me his argument about it being the best this and that.
Are you sure it was the same system? I'm afraid, unbalanced Lima-Moss-Forrester-1 just is not the best in any field. Ted has proved that rather conclusively (see his CCCafe simulations). I do remember clearly Moss was very keen on combining systems, and obviously two systems optimized for play and betting tended to outperform everything else.
If any credit is due here I will try and give it, but I would remind you that it is only a footnote in my book, and to give accreditation would be rather damning since I don't recommend its use.
In your post you state:
"The following is *all* that is written in John's book about the Lima system:"
And then quote a single paragraph about LIMA.
In fact, almost *EVERY* subject in May's book GTEABJ, is covered with a brief paragraph. Want to shuffle track? Read the overview summary paragraph. Want to try some card steering? Read the overview sumamry paragraph. Etc, Etc.
Maybe somebody will publish a real "GET THE EDGE" book, actually talking in substance about some advantage techniques, which a reader could actually learn and use.
