NEW Card Counting System! (CAC2 + CAC2 Enhanced)

[awesomeblue7]

The provided SCOREs are always for a single hand. For two hands, I recommend you follow the following thread:
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...T-or-two-SPOTS
Regarding how much to bet on each hand, the general rule is to bet approximately 73% on each one.
This means that if you bet 16 units in one hand, in two hands you would have to bet between 11 and 12 units on each.
That will guarantee you the same ROR as with a single hand, but with a better SCORE.

I don't understand what you mean by the insurance index. Please review the document carefully because it appears in several parts.

Enjoy!

Sincerely,
Cac

Thanks for the reminder to use ~73% of 1 hand value when playing two for same ROR. I am beginning locL play after few months of daily training. Table limits are only 1-10 at one place, so I will begin practicing a betting schedule utilizing two hands for a 1-12 spread.

[Cacarulo]

Thanks for the reminder to use ~73% of 1 hand value when playing two for same ROR. I am beginning locL play after few months of daily training. Table limits are only 1-10 at one place, so I will begin practicing a betting schedule utilizing two hands for a 1-12 spread.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

I am more in favor of simplicity as well and I am not interested in ace side count, in order to compare apples to apples, I think it is fair to make a comparison between SCORE of Hi Opt II (without ace side count) vs SCORE CAC2(without ace side count).


May I know what is the SCORE of Hi Opt II (without ace side count) ?

You're entitled to ask for whatever you want, but realize that the comparison is badly flawed. Hi-Opt II requires a side count of aces because it doesn't count the ace in the primary count. Not keeping the side count cripples the system. CAC2 counts the ace in the primary count and, therefore, doesn't require the side count, which makes it much simpler. But Cac has never made the claim that his count will outperform Hi-Opt II when the latter is used the way it is intended to be used.

Don

[James989]

You're entitled to ask for whatever you want, but realize that the comparison is badly flawed. Hi-Opt II requires a side count of aces because it doesn't count the ace in the primary count. Not keeping the side count cripples the system. CAC2 counts the ace in the primary count and, therefore, doesn't require the side count, which makes it much simpler. But Cac has never made the claim that his count will outperform Hi-Opt II when the latter is used the way it is intended to be used.

Don

Cacaluro's sim results proved that CAC2 is outperform(7.4% higher) Hi Opt II (without ace side count) !

[ubiquitin]

Hi-Opt II with an ace side count is superior to all systems that DO NOT use any side count, including CAC2 in its standard version.
Having said that, in order to compare apples to apples, CAC2 or any other system must necessarily incorporate an ace side count.
I explain this in detail in the enhanced document. The resulting SCORE of CAC2/A is similar to that of Hi-Opt II/A. However,
there are other combinations of side counts that, if properly combined, make it superior. Of course, they require a well-prepared
memory and mind. I am more in favor of simplicity, even if it means a slightly lower SCORE.

Sincerely,
Cac

One of the things that I think is phenomenal about your system is that we can incorporate the side counts for single/double deck, but for 6D it's not required to still be highly functional. That's my plan at least, but I'm still at the early stages of learning it.

[Cacarulo]

One of the things that I think is phenomenal about your system is that we can incorporate the side counts for single/double deck, but for 6D it's not required to still be highly functional. That's my plan at least, but I'm still at the early stages of learning it.

I appreciate your comment, and I would add that with single/double deck, the use of side counts is more powerful, but with 6D, it's not far behind. However, it is a bit more tiring.

Sincerely,
Cac

[iCountNTrack]

I haven't looked at CAC-2 and I am sure it's a great system, but I have to say that Hi-Opt2 with ASC is a really powerful system that has never ceased to amaze me especially for 2D games where you can get 100+ SCORE fairly quickly with a moderate bet spread

[toolyp]

“Hi-Opt II with an ace side count is superior to all systems that DO NOT use any side count, including CAC2 in its standard version.”

I swear I have not seen the CAC system. Furthermore, nobody has revealed to me any “secrets”. But the author himself revealed here at least two of the secret features of his system. One, Ace is counted; I guess -1. Two, the system is balanced. I would guess again. Either 6 is+2, or, surprisingly, 8=+1.

I’ve been reluctant to acquire the CAC system. I have a problem with self-deprecation. The penname of the author and the name of his system are cacophonic. Both sound awful to me. Cacarulo! CAC! Remind me of a self-deprecating versification in French about one Ninette and caca.

Having said that, I seem to be interested in the system. CAC was launched with fanfare in 2023. It is now 2024. Still waiting for an honest someone posting a real-life experience with the system. I mean, someone having played in a BaM American casino, especially. I would be interested especially in the author’s experience in the casino. Systems originate in real-life. No offence, just my honest opinion.

[aceside]

This stair is high. Is the name “Cacarulo” Italian?

[Gramazeka]

Which system has the largest variance? Halves or Cac 2 ?

p.s. Hi Hugo )) .

[Cacarulo]

Which system has the largest variance? Halves or Cac 2 ?

p.s. Hi Hugo )) .

Hi Grama!

Halves has the largest variance and my friend Hugo is not going to be happy with this news.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

Hi Grama!

Halves has the largest variance and my friend Hugo is not going to be happy with this news.

Sincerely,
Cac

I have learned to control variance at halves. Involves combination of high win rate coordinated with reducing $win per session and reducing by a further % reduction in $loss rate. Results really are extraordinary.

[Cacarulo]

I have learned to control variance at halves. Involves combination of high win rate coordinated with reducing $win per session and reducing by a further % reduction in $loss rate. Results really are extraordinary.

Sounds good. Another way is by reducing the spread.

Sincerely,
Cac