Thorp Ten-Count vs. Foret Lanyang Ten-Count

I just read this part on https://www.blackjackonline.com/counting/ten-count/.

Here it says more about the (+4, -9) count. 

“Simple, right?

It’s simple enough, sure. However, the problem with this system as pointed out by Peter Griffin (in The Theory of Blackjack) is that Thorp didn’t account for the removal of each card and the impact it would have on the house edge. So between the accuracy and the newer systems to hit the market, the Ten Count System eventually fell by the wayside.”

What's your point?? No one in this thread was discussing the 10-count for playing the game. We were talking about using +4 and -9 strictly to make perfect insurance decisions. Thorp's 10-count wasn't based on +4, -9; it was based on keeping a simple ratio of remaining non-tens to tens, like 34/10 = 3.4. Naturally, it's the same principle, but why even discuss that? It's not what this thread is about.

Don

My point is: it’s really not definitively known what a ten-count is. Quote from the same website:

”It used to be that you’d have to keep a count of both types of cards — your non-tens and ten-point cards. So in a single deck you’d have 16 tens and 36 non-tens. What you would do is then work your way backward (subtracting 1 from one or the other) as each card was dealt.”

Who cares what's definitively known as a 10-count? Why have you strayed from the original question, which has been asked and answered about five times here already? Drop it!

Don

Thorp (+4, -9) Ten-Count might have fallen by the wayside, but the number of Ten-Count systems purporting to attain 100% IC actually has increased. Readers of this thread can detect FIVE such systems in existence already. (In addition to Thorp (+4, -9) Ten-Count and Foret Lanyang (0, -1) Ten Count,  Cac and Automatic Monkey each identified two more, although one of the two systems from each of them appears to be identical.) More could be in the offing.

If Ten-Count systems are not in the mainstream today, it is not because of their lack of merit, but because of their lack of PUBLISHED DEVIATION INDICES.  (So far, Foret Lanyang has revealed only one deviation index, that is, 1.333 or higher TC for insurance.) More reasearch, more sharing Please!

Okay. I’ll take a break on this part. What really counts is the EV^2/variance. That’s your SCORE. 

While playing a hand with Foret Lanyang Ten Count (or any 10-count systems), the question is whether to inure, surrender, split, double-down, hit or stay.  The deviation index -- not the EV, not the variance, not the Score of the counting system used -- is of immediate concern.   

Not sure if anyone uses Thorp Ten-Count or other Ten-Counts for the purpose of sizing the bets nowadays, but Foret Lanyang's Ten-Count ("X-Count") is suitable for sizing the bets in addition to making the insurance buying decisions.

This is the basic: Each X-Count True Count translates into approximately an 0.73% EV increment for players; and at +1 X-count TC,  the house loses most, if not all, of its edge in 3-to-2 S17 blackjack (or the more common 3-to-2 H17 blackjack at low-minimum tables) against basic strategy players.  Once the True Count is +1 or higher, X-Count counters can prudently increase their bets in proportion to EV increments.   

I thought I would not say anything anymore in this stair, but I find your term “X-count” creative. FWIW, I'd say your system can also be named “01-count," while other such systems can be named “10-count.” 

BTW, you probably meant to say 0.0073 EV. 

Thank you for pointing out that I probably meant 0.0073 EV.  I would add % to 0.73 EV..