Thorp Ten-Count vs. Foret Lanyang Ten-Count

Point Value Comparison

Thorp Ten-Count : +4 for card A thru 9, -9 for 10 thru. K

Foret Lanyang Ten-Count  0 for A thru 9, -1 for 10 thru K.

Both techniques obtained precisely the same result. Both got their 100% IC. But if you use Thorp's Ten-Count, your running count will be running up 4 or be running down 9 anytime the dealer slaps down a card. But if you uses Foret Lanyang's Ten-Count instead, your running will be running like 1 2 3 4 5 . . . . all the time.

Moraine Asks: Need any special intelligence to count One Two Three Four Five?

Answer: Card Counting can be as easy as counting 1 2 3 4 5. Play Smarter,  Not Harder. That is what counting is all about !!!

Both techniques are not strictly precise, because you do not know the precise number of remaining decks.  BTW, I believe you published a book on this. I'm interested. 

Hi  aceside, Thanks for remembering me and interested in my book.  That Moraine Mono's book was on AceMT, which Foret Lanyang used for playing shoe games in blackjack or Spanish 21.  It was not on Foret Lanyang's Ten-Count., which Foret Lanyang mostly used for playing one or two-deck blackjack only.  (No one or two-deck Spanish 21 in existence.) 

Firstly, you parallel Thorp with Foret Lanyang. Who is Foret Lanyang? Is this yourself or your friend?

Secondly, I find your statement “Both got their 100% IC” questionable. I believe neither of these ten-counts has 100% Insurance Correlation ( IC). If you could explain this a little more, I will read more into your book. 

It is correct that both counting systems have an IC of 100%. One count is balanced (4, -9) and the other is unbalanced. To use them, it is necessary to convert to true count and have previously calculated the corresponding index. I don’t see either of the two counts as being simple to use (at least in shoe games). In the second one, it’s not just about counting the tens that come out.

There are other simpler systems that also have an IC of 100%, for example: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2. The advantage of this last one is that it can be used without conversion to true count.

Another system with an IC of 100% is 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1, but here again it is necessary to convert to TC.

Sincerely,
Cac

This is odd. If you do not know the precise number of remaining decks in a shoe, no way will you get an IC of 100% for the above two ten-counts. 

I wrote a detailed response a moment ago, but it somehow got lost.  Briefly, since Foret Lanyang's Ten-Count, knows exactly how many 10-value cards have been dealt, it achieves 100% IC. 

Example:  2-deck shoe, after 1 deck, only fourteen 10-value cards were exposed.  Buy insurance? Yes, since

(16x2-14)/ (52x1) = 0.346, bigger than 1/3.

PS - Foret Lanyang pioneered AceMT, who in no way can be a parallel of Prof. Thorp. (Foret ranked 37th out of a class of 42, who raised left hand when all other pupil raised right hand as instructed.

Here is the problem in your example. Player finds only 14 10-valued cards were exposed out of a 2-deck shoe, and he estimates that the remaining deck number was about 1, which could be somewhere between 1.25 and 0.75. Base on this information, you cannot determine if you should insure it or it. Does this make any sense? 

The estimate on how many decks are remaining is always tricky.  But with practice, practice and practice, its accuracy can be greatly improved, especially for two-deck games.

It’s better you post out your proof right here, before you make any claim of 100%. There are many APs and mathematicians here. I’m just a beginner. 

That calculation is not easy to do. In your example, it looks simple because you're considering that only one deck has been played. But if 37 cards have been dealt, of which 14 are 10-value cards, I think the calculation will get a bit more complicated for you.

Let's analyze both examples using the (1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2) system. The index is +9, meaning that if the running count (RC) ≥ +9 (for 2 decks), I buy insurance.

In the first deck, 14 tens and 38 non-tens were dealt. This means that:
RC = -28 + 38 = +10
Since this is greater than +9, I buy insurance.

In the other example, 14 tens and 23 non-tens were dealt. So:
RC = -28 + 23 = -5
Which indicates that I should not buy insurance.

Sincerely,
Cac

I’m very interested in this part. Can you please demonstrate that the IC of this system is 100%?  Player only knows the Running Count is r and the remaining deck number is roughly 1.1. 

You should consider reading Theory of Blackjack, where Peter Griffin explains how to use EORs to calculate correlation. This process is typically applied to balanced systems, but since this one is unbalanced, your first step should be to balance it. There are online resources available on how to do this. The tags will likely shift from whole numbers to decimals.

Sincerely,
Cac

That is why I find this part interesting. For a balanced system, I know my way of calculating IC, but, this one  is tricky. 

Suppose you want to balance an unbalanced system like TKO. Since the imbalance of this system is +1, you can create a balanced version by subtracting +1/13 from each tag. Once balanced, this new system will allow you to calculate the IC or BC of TKO.
Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

The benefit from a somewhat harder true count conversion is that a counter using Foret Lanyang's Ten-Count may take breaks (actually 36 breaks per deck) from the constant up-and-down running count adjustments required by other Ten-Count systems.

You are definitely confident. This is what I said to you a few years ago. However, I’m still not confident about the Insurance Correlation (IC) of 100% for this (+4, -9) system. I guess it all comes down to how you define IC. For me, I only regard perfect insurance as IC 100%, but (+4, -9) is way off from it.

I’d like to hear what Gronbog may say about this. Also, I believe Don already is very impatient about this kind of discussion. He probably will dismiss all of this. 

"He probably will dismiss all of this."

There's nothing to dismiss. You've been shown the two classic 100% IC counts, and Cac has offered a couple of others. What you choose to like or not like about them is irrelevant. That's what's so nice about math: No one cares what your opinion is about 2+2. This isn't social studies. Whether you like something or not is not our concern.

Don

It’s evident that you don’t know how to calculate the Insurance Correlation (IC). There is only one correct way to define IC, and it’s clearly not the one you’re using. I strongly suggest you read TOB or research how to calculate correlation online. This isn’t a matter of opinion but of mathematics.

Sincerely,
Cac

If Foret Lanyang can prove that the (+4, -9) count system has an Insurance Correlation (IC) of 100%, I will read his book. Please post the proof here.