I do not use a traditional ace side count. I use a betting side count where I balance the Aces against the 3s. I add this count into the play count. Basically, I am using Hi-opt 1 combined with RPC.
When there are a lot of 3s out compared to Aces, I have noticed that doubling an 11 tends to do poorly. My sample size is no bigger than intuition, but it does lead me to a question. Can this information, Aces v. 3s, be used for play count adjustment?
Neither Aces nor Threes are cards you would like to see when doubling on 11. So when balancing these cards against each other, the information you get for that particular play is exactly zero.
Francis Salmon
One of the most valuable uses of side counts is for the double on 11 play, but hiopt11 players mostly side count aces and sevens for this play
A few months ago somebody was asking about you and I didn't know what to tell them. Hope you are well.
BP
Hope things are going well for you.
My observations have been made in neutral play counts; and as I have said, a very small sample, so I am not drawing conclusions. When Aces highly outnumber the 3s, my bet is the minimum, so it does not really matter what happens. When 3s highly outnumber the Aces, I tend to get an Ace more often on large bets. What I am saying does make sense, and zero information is not accurate. Whether or not I can turn this into something useful is another question. This play may not be a good example, since the increased likelihood of getting an Ace is balanced by the decreased likelihood of getting a 3. Obviously, I have noticed that I am doing poorly because of the large bets, due to the probability of excess aces before the deal. The corollary question was whether it would be better to not double an 11 in these situations. Even though you may have impliedly answered the question, it is still better to double and receive a 3 because it takes that card out of play.
The double 11 play was just the example that made me think of the question. The question is can this betting side count be used, on ANY play, to adjust the play count? I do not side count cards separately, like most players do. I would appreciate any info.
Is there any way to use my betting count to adjust the play count for any plays? Has any author analyzed this? I understand I use an uncommon method.
First of all I would like to point out that doubling on 11 is almost always favorable to the player and for the only exception (when the dealer's upcard is an Ace) it's certainly not worthwhile to introduce a side count as you can handle this with the main count.
Furthermore I tried to explain to you that it's absolutely useless to oppose Aces to Threes since these are both bad cards to get on 11.In one case you end up with a total of 12 in the other with 15 and as you might know you are not entitled to take further cards on doubling. So in both cases you can only win if the dealer busts.
Now if you are really haunted by the thought of getting such bad cards on doubling 11 I recommand you to side count Aces versus Nines. At least here you get some useful information in that respect.
Francis Salmon
Your help is NOT appreciated, so please let someone who knows what they are talking about approach the topic if they are willing. Why the hell would I be tracking A v. 3 to double an 11? Are you purposely being difficult or are you that really that dense? I have explained it in as much detail as possible. I use Ace-neutral RPC. Due to this uncommon method, I have extra info left over, and I want to know how it can be put to use.
"Your help is NOT appreciated, so please let someone who knows what they are talking about approach the topic if they are willing."
Francis knows probably 100 times more things on BJ that you`ll ever imagine... Give at least some respect to those trying to make a half decent player with you.
I see you have not learned anything from getting banned from Norm's board. Do you also post as kingofdice? You sound like him...
F.S. Is a valuable board contributor. The last thing we want is for him to be driven off.
i did not come here for more online drama saga. one thing i did learn at that peddler's site is that people like to speak volumes over their misinterpretion of concise messages. The real lesson was bow to the messiah or be cast out. i hope this isnt the same. i want information, not to join a commune. if francine is really smart, i dont care, he doesn't look it. i'll judge it by the cover. if people wanna carry on, i can just make a new name like precipitationcreator.
I recently purchased Peter Griffin's book, Theory of Blackjack, and while there's much of it I can't follow (even having passed 2 actuary exams, and having a math degree!), your question sounds like a line of thought that Professor Griffin analyzed in the sections of the book where he discusses "the effect of removal". I think an "imbalance" of Aces to 3s (and vice versa) would be comparable to an "effect of removal". Maybe you can use his approach from there to look for other studies (he makes a lot of references in the book).
I don't know the High Opt I or II count, but I think Pit viper's comment is very helpful, regarding the effect of 7s. And R.A. Epstein's book, The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic discusses this effect I think also.
I appreciate the references. I will look into it. If you happen across anything pertinent, please post.
I downloaded Griffin. I am using a version of an indicator count. Already I have learned that I should treat Aces as high cards when doubling soft 19 or 20 v. 5 or 6 (thus use the primary count). And as for the double 11 inquiry that originally brought up the question...my hunch was incorrect, an abundance of 3s out of the shoe, as opposed to aces, is slightly better, but insignificant.
This is very useful info, which I can use to conservatively adjust the count on several hands. Thank you again.
something Griffin had mentioned also regarding 7s where if you did have info of the "richness" of 7s in the remaining deck(s), you could eek out a very small (insignificant) gain on a certain basic strategy deviation.
