Here is the system I use: Level 2 unbalanced with separate count of Aces,
BC = 0.90 PC = 0.92 PE = 0.71 IC = 1.00
The Insurance Index is derived from running count alone and is based on ten density. Betting is done by TC conversion +/- Ace density Playing of specific hands is done by TC alone.
You see, here on this forum is a guy that works downtown Vegas on Fremont as pit supervisor. He will definitely look tonight for a big counter that bets according with how the ace density is or how the tens are or are not in the deck. But I will probably be betting using Dahl’s progression or even better using the percentage betting in progression format. He will never know for sure what to look for because probably I will be at the 6:5 game instead at the 3:2 table.
that's pretty good since there is no known counting system with a PE of .71 (see www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm). Nor is there any known counting system with an IC of 1.00, except for counting systems specifically attacking insurance only (A-9 = +4, 10-K = -9) and which is also useless for betting and playing decisions...
Personally, that "unbalanced system" appears more "unbalanced" than one might imagine at first glance... Every counting system I know of has compromises that affect either BC, PE or IC (and I have no idea what PC means in your numbers above). The best BC counting systems have a very poor PE, as one example. But in shoes, PE is irrelevant and BC is critical.
So I have no idea exactly what you are dreaming about...
www.qfit.com will answer most all questions and bury most myths...
It does look pretty good except that the BC (the most important factor in getting an edge) is lower than any other system except Hi-Opt I without the side count. Since your unbalanced count requires an ace side count to get a 90% BC (alnog with a TC conversion??), I'd say you were barking up the wrong tree with this system. Just about any other system would earn more money than this one.
Also, you mention that a pit supervisor is reading these posts but then you describe exactly where you'll be playing (the 6:5 table??) and what progression you'll be using. Frankly, if he has any sense at all he won't be worried about you after reading this.
Alex- It would help if you gave the tag numbers for your system. I can sort of understand how you get an IC=1 based on the fact that you are less likely to make a wrong decision based on the running count for 10's density. Rounding can lead to a wrong decision on insurance if you depend on the TC.
PC, based on some scant notes that I have, is an actual measure of how effective your tag assignments are in reflecting the realitive value of the individual cards and their removal. Not the same as PE, but very much related. Count system developers, like Renzey, would have a better grasp than me. It does, however, give an indication of why level 2-3 systems are a little better.
No doubt the ace sc is a very strong performance addition to single deck play and the fact that you have such a big reduction in BC seems to have no effect. I think it must take a sim to see that effect or some very complicated math.