What's the BE and PE of my system?

Hi Math Gurus there,

I have managed a self-developed BJ counting system with the following card values assigned (to avoid the side counting as my brain is NOT smart enough to handle the multitasking):
Card 2 = 2
Card 3 = 2
Card 4 = 2.5
Card 5 = 3.5
Card 6 = 2
Card 7 = 1.5
Card 8 = 0
Card 9 = -0.5
Card 10s = -2.5
Card A = -3.5

Could any math guru out there advice me what's the BE (Betting Efficiency) and PE (Playing Efficiency) of this system? Could it reach 98%BE and 70%PE respectively?

Much appreciated.

Thanks
Rouxia

Examine http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/hundred.htm. Note that it describes 100 count systems, none of them with a tag value exceeding 4.

Your inquiry may or may not be frivolous but satisfying it would be. Maintaining a single side count of aces is easily accomplished, but the arithmetic involved in your running count is non-sustainable and non-remunerative.

You harvest most of the gain multi-level counts can offer over level-one counts by utilizing RPC (12222100-2-2) or Epstein 2 (11221100-20) which use only three non-zero values. Plus, a separate count of aces with Epstein 2 will yield a betting correlation similar to RPC's [theoretically perhaps slightly better, but this depends upon the Effects of Removal presumed] and an insurance correlation of a whopping .93.

Just wondering how it flows. Is it balanced or un? Seems like the fractional card values would be harder to handle for a slow mind like mine. Especially if you're dividing by the number of 1/2 decks for TC.

> Card 2 = 2
> Card 3 = 2
> Card 4 = 2.5
> Card 5 = 3.5
> Card 6 = 2
> Card 7 = 1.5
> Card 8 = 0
> Card 9 = -0.5
> Card 10s = -2.5
> Card A = -3.5

BC = .998
PE = .511
IC = .706

In comparison:

HiLo:
BC = .97
PE = .51
IC = .76

Revere Point Count:
BC = .99
PE = .55
IC = .78

Hi-Opt II:
BC = .99
PE = .67
IC = .91

-Sonny-

Move up to bigger insurance gains!! Avail yourself of one of the benefits of counting the Ten and only the Ten as a big card. Think of it as a legacy of Ten Count accuracy.

Try 11111111-21. Insure each time the running count hits +4 at single deck. And each time it's +8 at double. And each time it's +24 at six deck. Result? IC of 1.00. Whenever the running count is four times the number of decks shuffled together, the NT/T ratio is 2 to 1. As the running count rises past 4 X Ndecks, the NT/T ratio falls.

Try 11111111-20. Insure each time the sum of the running count plus the number of aces played hits +4 at single deck. And each time it's +8 at double. And each time it's +24 at six deck. Result? IC of 1.00.

Try 11221100-20. Insure each time the sum of the running count plus the number of aces played hits +4 at single deck. And each time it's +8 at double. And each time it's +24 at six deck. Result? IC of 0.93.

Forget basing insurance decisions on True Count. This works better. It also means lots of insurance at single deck, which is how it's supposed to be.

In fact, you can dispense with True Count conversion altogether. You don't need it for departures. You can achieve more accuracy without it. I tried to find a link to it, but I can't seem to find it with the Search function. I just came off a big poker win, it's the early morning hours, and I have a mortgage application to prepare for someone and an important tournament tomorrow for which I need get some rest. If you're interested, I'll post it again tomorrow or the next day.

> Try 11221100-20. Insure each time the sum of the running count
> plus the number of aces played hits +4 at single deck. And each
> time it's +8 at double. And each time it's +24 at six deck.
> Result? IC of 0.93.

This is similar to the VIP insurance count for ace-neutral systems:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/victorinsuranceoriginal.htm

Both methods are very simple and will gain you an extra few hundredths of a percent on IC. Easy Money!

-Sonny-