Hi-Low on Anabolic Steriods

I use hi-low but i use it a bit differntly than the norm. I usually play shoes but when i do happen to play DD I use hi-low but I keep track of the cards played.

case and point: lets say your playing SD and on the first hand all four of the 7's and 5's are played. using hi-low you would have a t.c. of +4 with of an advantage of 1.5%. but in reality your advantage would be much higher. since the 5's and 7's should be wieghted more than what hi-low gives them.

so in reality for the played 5's the advantage would be (4)x(0.64%) = +2.56%
and for the played 7's the advangtage would be (4)x(0.30%)= + +1.2%

2.56% + 1.2% = 3.76%

we must also times the 3.76% x 1.16 i believe because 8 cards have already been played out of 52????(not sure on this Math Experts could help me verify this)

so i believe the actuall advantage for this example is 4.3%. this is almost 3 times higher than what the average hi-low player bets on the next hand. this works FOR BETTING PURPOSES ONLY. i dont actually do all the math in my head before making my next bet but if i do see a bunch of 5's and 7's being played in the begining of the shoe i will throw another stone out. or on the other hand if i see a bunch of 9's being played I may hold one back

interested in hearing some thougths if others do this and aslo if my math is correct.

Ace has spoken

Sounds like what you are really playing is Wongs Halves. Buy Wongs Professional BJ for a complete description of what you described and a comparison to Hi-Lo complete with strategy numbers.

I will waste my time with a brief answer. But your post was confusing so I'll make the first part of mine confusing for revenge!

If you want to use halves count then use halves, why mix it with hilo?
The reason for the difference is because halves has a better correlation with "real ev". But this "real ev" may not really be the "real real ev". I will explain this later
Both counts are not 100% accurate in predicting advantage but we use simple +/- "count" approximations of the "effects of removal" of each card in altering "estimated ev". Which is the linear EOR values.
Since "effects of removal" will change depending on differing compositions and differing penetrations for a single deck, can't get an exact "effects of removal" figure but a best fitted "estimated regression line". So even the ultimate count will not be 100% accurate in predicting "real real ev" a lot of time.
Hope you understand now.

Halves gives a better correlation for betting and playing deviations, so I don't see why you want to use hilo and side count halves, simply use halves. If you want to use hilo then simply use hilo FOR BETTING as well. Using both together is no good, you'll make lots of errors in etimating ev. All counts simply gives an estimate of the "real real ev", a lot of times they will be completely out.
Correlation only suggests a TENDENCY for the count and "real real ev" to go up and down together but not always.

I didnt post my previous message to get help. i know that i am right and i was trying to prove a point to all the new counters out there. You seem to be knowledgeable on the issue so i am not sure why you had trouble with it? I never said anything about "halves" in my post. I simply showed the equations for my example and tried to show new counters that the game is more than just the count. its all about the advantage. If you see 5's and 7's being played on the first hand using hi-low, the advantage is more than what the count dictates. NUFF SAID

"So even the ultimate count will not be 100% accurate in predicting "real real ev" a lot of time."

i am not sure what you mean by this. obvioulsy if we knew the exact composition of the deck with x-ray vision we would all be retired and living in the carribean. we can only approximate with our mental abiilities from the cards that has been shown to us. Enlighten Me

Ace