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.
Foret Lanyang is not here, but Moraine is. How about accept this as the best proof that Moraine can offer. If you check into Encyclopedia of Blackjack, you will find under Thorp Ten-Count:
A table showing the point values of +4, -9 and
BC = .72 PE = .61 IC = 1.00
I do not accept this. Sorry, but I'd like to see the derivation.
I do not accept this.
Sorry, then it is beyond Moraine's ability (or interest) to prove for a counting system that Prof. Thorp created. Moraine already knows Foret Lanyang's easier Ten-Count system anyway.
Nobody is willing to derive anything. People just quote each other. I understand.
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.
An Insurance Decision Made Easy: Foret Lanyang Ten-Count Can Help
A blackjack deck has 52 cards, when using Foret Lanyang Ten-Count system, if the True Count for the remaining shoe is bigger than (52 / 3) - 16 = 17.3333 - 16 = 1.3333, buy insurance. Otherwise, don't.
These counts seem like a solution without a problem.
I'm familiar with two Tens counts- one is what I've heard called the Archer Count, and it is the same as the insurance count, but with indices and a betting spread- {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,-2} {A...10}
The other is a balanced Tens count that has been called the Fry Count- {0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,-2} {A...10} This one you would normally use with an ace sidecount. Adding the ace sidecount gives you perfect insurance information, and you can also use the ace as a high card for betting, or you can use it any other way you need to for sidebets. Fry is a pretty strong count for all kinds of traditional blackjack, especially if there are sidebets that it couples to.
Can you explain how and when using some other Tens count would be better?
These counts seem like a solution without a problem.
I'm familiar with two Tens counts- one is what I've heard called the Archer Count, and it is the same as the insurance count, but with indices and a betting spread- {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,-2} {A...10}
The other is a balanced Tens count that has been called the Fry Count- {0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,-2} {A...10}
* * * * *
Can you explain how and when using some other Tens count would be better?
The "problem": The counter must immediately adjust the running count up-and-down every time a card is exposed -- no break at all.
Why it is better: When using Foret Lanyang 10-Count, a lazy counter like Moraine has 52 -16 = 36 breaks per deck.
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.
An Insurance Decision Made Easy: Foret Lanyang Ten-Count Can Help
A blackjack deck has 52 cards, when using Foret Lanyang Ten-Count system, if the True Count for the remaining shoe is bigger than (52 / 3) - 16 = 17.3333 - 16 = 1.3333, buy insurance. Otherwise, don't.
I don’t understand this. In a double-deck game, your running count varies from 0 to -32 as your remaining deck number varies from 2 to 0; therefore, your true count varies from 0 to negative infinity regardless of what. Is this right?
Then, how do you get a true count? Need more math work here.
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.
An Insurance Decision Made Easy: Foret Lanyang Ten-Count Can Help
A blackjack deck has 52 cards, when using Foret Lanyang Ten-Count system, if the True Count for the remaining shoe is bigger than (52 / 3) - 16 = 17.3333 - 16 = 1.3333, buy insurance. Otherwise, don't.
I don’t understand this. In a double-deck game, your running count varies from 0 to -32 as your remaining deck number varies from 2 to 0; therefore, your true count varies from 0 to negative infinity regardless of what. Is this right?
Then, how do you get a true count? Need more math work here.
Aceside, "Wrong" is the answer to your question. Never negative infinity.
PS: Apparently you still haven't read my book on AceMT even though you had indicated earlier that you would. If you apply the same method for tallying the Running Count and the method for RC-TC conversion explained there, you can obtain the RC and the TC for Foret Lanyang's Ten-Count, too -- regardless of the number of decks in the shoe.
Again, no math no reading.
Nobody is willing to derive anything. People just quote each other. I understand.
This isn't about anyone refusing to derive anything. If you claim something is wrong, it's up to you to provide a derivation explaining why. No one is obligated to prove anything to you.
That said, I've given you hints so you can work through it yourself and see why your reasoning is flawed. But instead, it's easier to say, "I think this is wrong, and until someone proves otherwise, I'll keep believing it".
I doubt Moraine needs you to buy their book—before that, I'd suggest getting TOB.
Besides, we have NEVER seen the formula you're using to calculate the insurance correlation.
Sincerely,
Cac
Last hint: Theory of Blackjack, page 71. Do the math!! Insurance correlation for non-tens = +4, tens = -9 is 100%.
Don
I just read this part in TOB. The book says that determination of a card counting system's betting correlation is just one equation: the correlation is the sum of the product of the point values and the effects divided by the square root of the product of the sums of the squares of each set of numbers.
It also says insurance correlations are done the same way. Although this is clear, I still hold this notion that there is a problem here. Here is the main problem for the (+4, -9) system. Let the number of non-ten cards that are exposed be N, and let the number of ten-valued cards that are exposed be T. You need to know both the values of N and T to make a perfect insurance decision. You cannot use the running count +4 N -9 T alone to make a perfect insurance decision. Although you might make a somewhat close decision using RC= +4 N -9 T, such as, if RC<0, never take insurance. If you have both the RC value and the exact remaining deck number, you may make a perfect insurance decision.
Betting correlation and insurance correlation are different, I believe. I'm still thinking through this part.
No one said it would be easy to do while playing the game. You were shown easier systems with more manageable numbers, but also with perfect (100%) IC. The fact that, with this one, you might be looking for TC>=17.33 to take insurance doesn't change the fact that the tags are perfectly correlated for making that play.
Don
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
This is the part that I’ve been thinking. Let us consider the KO count only, which is {A, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T} = (-1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, 0, 0, -1). Instead of subtracting 1/13 from each tag number, we normalize them by dividing a number, sqrt(11)/sqrt(13) ? This is still unbalanced. This is confusing. I’m thinking a way to calculate this but still haven’t put in numbers.
This conversation is a good illustration on why team blackjack olay is likely ti fail The math implies team play is befificial bit human interactions in this instance make it unworkable.
This conversation is a good illustration on why team blackjack play is likely to fail The math implies team play is beneficial but human interactions in this instance make it unworkable.
You need to vet your teammates VERY carefully! 😊 My guess is that aceside hasn't been on too many teams.
Don
Too much wasted time by computer theorists incapable of playing for profit!!
This conversation is a good illustration on why team blackjack play is likely to fail The math implies team play is beneficial but human interactions in this instance make it unworkable.
You need to vet your teammates VERY carefully! 😊 My guess is that aceside hasn't been on too many teams.
Don
Time has changed, so has the game. Fast-action one or two-deck blackjack with decent rules has disappeared almost completely. Team-play may have become things of the past. Hard to think of a real advantage for a team when casino bars mid-shoe entry. Count yourself lucky -- NOT IF YOU HAVE aceside ON YOUR TEAM OR ON THE SIDELINE -- but if you can find a S17 6-deck blackjack with less than 20% cut off and still with no rule on mid-shoe entry.
A solo practitioner equipped with Foret Lanyang's Ten-Count may not only "BEAT THE DEALER" as told in a book, but also beat a dream team which has a member specializing in Thorp Ten-Count.
Don't necessarily think of teams just with Big Players coming into calls. There are many teams where there are individuals playing all over the country or world, simultaneously, using a large, joint bankroll.
Don
