Ace Five Count decks

When using the Ace Five Count found Here at the wizard of odds

The instructions seem dummy proof but do you have to divide by the number of decks Remaining in the shoe?

And do you up your bet for every 2 in count?

I'll resist the temptation to bring up other counts and stick to your questions.

Use the running count. Here is a somewhat aggressive 1-8 betting spread that you will need with this count.

RC1- 1unit, RC2- 2 units, RC3- 4 units and RC4 and higher 8 units. There is risk here with a lot of fluctuation so it is imperative to have a substantial bankroll.

Quote: 1BB

I'll resist the temptation to bring up other counts and stick to your questions.

Use the running count. Here is a somewhat aggressive 1-8 betting spread that you will need with this count.

RC1- 1unit, RC2- 2 units, RC3- 4 units and RC4 and higher 8 units. There is risk here with a lot of fluctuation so it is imperative to have a substantial bankroll.

So when do you start using this count, right away or how far into the shoe? would this be a good count for some one just starting to think about counting? (like me)Counting is very intimidating to me as are the counters on this forum. I mean that in a good way.

I don't use this counting system, but it seems like it would be a good one for a beginning counter, and/or someone who doesn't play too often and then just does so recreationally. You only need to count two different cards and do not have to convert a RC into a TC. Additionally the betting progression is already defined for you.

As with any counting system, I'd put in some practice before applying it at a live game.

Quote: mycran

So when do you start using this count, right away or how far into the shoe? would this be a good count for some one just starting to think about counting? (like me)Counting is very intimidating to me as are the counters on this forum. I mean that in a good way.

You start at the beginning of the shoe. The stats on the Wiz's page show how effective the Ace-Five is; it's a pretty weak count but it will get you an edge in the long term.

Personally I think unbalanced counts such as Red 7, KISS III, and KO are not that much harder and are nearly as powerful as the old standby, Hi-Lo.

I actually interpreted the betting progression as doubling even if the RC stays constant at 2.
So that if you have a 1-16 spread it would look like this
Start of Shoe RC=0 bet 1, and let's say you have the following RC sequence before each round.
round 2: RC1 bet 1
round 3: RC2 bet 2 (double previous bet).
round 4: RC2 bet 4, (double your previous bet even though running count has not increased!
round 5: RC3 bet 8
round 6: RC2 bet 16 (yes, double even though the count decreased, it's still greater than or equal to 2)!
round 7: RC0 bet 1
round 8: RC3 bet 2 (only double your previous bet).

I think these wild swings are necessary to compensate for the weak count.
This progression would obviously need additional cover plays such as not necessarily increasing after push, and possibly wonging out at RC < -5 or so...

Not sure I'm correct... but I'd be interested in your feedback.

Always bet with the count. Your max bet whatever that may be should only be out at +4 or higher. Wong out at -3.

Quote: mixmanmatt

The instructions seem dummy proof but do you have to divide by the number of decks Remaining in the shoe?

And do you up your bet for every 2 in count?

Something has changed.
I would ask the Wizard.

I read and understand as doubling your last bet as long as the count is 2 or higher,
just as the example jmaftir gave.

That page shows
Last Update: Jan 29, 2010

The previous version, that I have on my computer reads as this.

"Establish what your minimum bet will be. This is called one unit.
At the beginning of each shoe, start a running count at zero.
For each 5 observed, add one to the running count.
For each ace observed, subtract one from the running count.

If the running count is less than or equal to zero, then bet one unit.
Otherwise bet 2×(unit size)×(running count)
Use basic strategy for all playing decisions."

"Unlike traditional card counting strategies, which require a true count conversion, penetration doesn't make much difference in the Wizard Count. "
"The following table shows the player advantage based on penetration and rules.

The average bet size will be 2.85 times one unit.
The standard deviation of the bet size is high at 3.2 units.
The bet size is 10 or more units 6.58% of the time,
and 20 or more 0.13% of the time.

In simulations the bet size got as high as 38 units."

It looks to me, the Wizard has changed his method with help from Norm Wattenberger and Don Schlesinger from what it used to be.
Only the Wizard at this point in time can really answer your question.

I've played my own version for a long time (1982).

I would like to point out a success by using a "Missouri Cover" rule "Do not raise your bet upon a tie or loss, but always reduce the bet according to the RC."

A-5 is a very marginal count, and according to the posted rules for the Wiz's strategy in a 6D S17 game a +1 is still -EV, except close to the stop card.
If you add 1 RC to the Wiz's betting strategy (Bet 2 at +2, 4 at +3, 8 at +4), and use Missouri Cover, you will reduce the variance, and average bet-size, while raising the EV/unit wagered.
In short, by delaying the raise until you get a winner at the new Bet Amount, one does not risk bigger losses UP FRONT: LARGE increases in RC is detrimental, as one only parlays the win up to the Bet level. The DELAY is costly sometimes late in the shoe. This can be somewhat counterracted by adding 1 to the RC when 3 decks remain in the shoe.

I did a lot of sims back in the early/mid 2000's with CV ver. 3&4. Unfortuneately, I've have had to migrate to Linux, and tough the info is stored in a HDD, it is not availible at present.

EDIT: ReSplit Aces and Late Surrender are VERY important Rules. Without them, BJ is about -0.447%, with both, -0.301%, LS only -0.371%, RSA only -0.376%.

Sound like you also use a linear rather than geometric betting progression. Right?

Not sure where you got the new text. When I follow the link in OP it still talks about doubling your previous bet *anytime* RC is greater than or equal to 2.


I did receive a PM response from wizard on this, essentially echoing what 1bb said about following the count.

I interpret the formula therefore to be
bet = max(2^(max(0,RC-1)) * unit, maxunit).
yielding
1 for RC <1, RC2=2, RC3=4, RC4=8, RC>=5 is 16 for maxunit=16.


Also, about wonging, you sit at a fresh shoe, dealer burns an Ace, two seats get a blackjack and there are no 5's dealt. RC =-3. do you really stand up at this point 1bb? or is does this only apply to later in the shoe?

So I PM'd the wizard and got the following response regarding betting progression.

Quote: Wizard

If the RC remains at 2 you keep doubling until you get to your max bet. For betting purposes there are only two counts that matter: 2 or more and 1 or less.

However, the player should not feel compelled to follow any betting strategy exactly, for any card counting strategy. The important thing is betting more in good counts.

---------- ORIGINAL MESSAGE ----------

Can you address question on whether it is linear or .geometric.
If RC remains 3 for example, would you continue to double bets until max or would you keep them constant?

That corresponds to my interpretation below,. and not the one proposed by 1BB in his first post.
Again, no big deal, but it does clarify the intended progression for A-5 Count.

Quote: jmaftir

I actually interpreted the betting progression as doubling even if the RC stays constant at 2.
So that if you have a 1-16 spread it would look like this
Start of Shoe RC=0 bet 1, and let's say you have the following RC sequence before each round.
round 2: RC1 bet 1
round 3: RC2 bet 2 (double previous bet).
round 4: RC2 bet 4, (double your previous bet even though running count has not increased!
round 5: RC3 bet 8
round 6: RC2 bet 16 (yes, double even though the count decreased, it's still greater than or equal to 2)!
round 7: RC0 bet 1
round 8: RC3 bet 2 (only double your previous bet).