OPP count

Looking for information and advice on the OPP count for a beginner,seems fairly simple ,maybe too simle.Or would I be better off with KO or red 7. I mainly play small time,8 deck, DAS,H17,no surrender,3:2, split up to 4 hands. Thanks for any help.

deleted

As I understand it . you start with a count of +6 subtract 1 for each players hand including the dealers then only count the small cards(2-6). At the start of each hand subtract number of hands played and add only the small cards again. When your count gets around +14 the player has an advantage, you use the RC.

deleted

How do you guys feel about the way I tend to count:

It's High-Low, but instead of 2-6 +1 and 10-A -1, I do it the same way but ignore 6's, 7's, 8's and 9's, but don't convert to a TC.

deleted

Quote: sodawater

That seems to be shooting yourself in the foot, mission.

You're banking on the sixes to be evenly distributed to simulate a true count, but the whole point of counting is to take advantage of situations where cards are not evenly distributed! So now you're really hoping that the sixes fall once every 52 cards but the rest of the small cards do not.

Is it because you dont like estimating how many decks remain? You could buy 6 decks of cards for $2 total from a dollar store and with 10 mins of practice you can be a pro at reading the discard tray (most casinos still use them -- but not in PA)

I'm not really hoping for the Sixes to be evenly distributed, my reasoning is that, since I am more likely to come across a bad count with the way I am doing things, that I am definitely increasing my bets when I have a really good count without the need for converting to a TC.

I'll take your suggestion with estimating how many decks remain, though, that would be fun anyway. Hopefully I can find a friend who wants to do that (and deals fast) while I play four hands at a time.

Getting back to Mycran's original topic, OPP is discussed on Arnold Snyder's website. You are looking at good sites! Mycran, if you search this forum for OPP or Speed Count, you'll see at least a few mssgs on the topic. OPP is identical to Speed Count as presented by Frank Scoblete. Both OPP and Speed Count were "published" at the same time.

I have been using Speed Count for a while. While Frank's book lacks a serious tone, and many people who play more advanced counting systems are dismissive of Speed Count (and therefore OPP), the fact that Arnold Snyder published OPP on his site and hosts a number of articles about it, should reassure you that the system is worth considering. As an occasional player, Speed Count suits me. Although less efficient than Hi Lo, KO, or Red Seven, it is also much easier to execute. You can learn and play the same day, most likely. I consider it one step up from just playing basic strategy. One of the best things about it, is that it helps me gauge when a shoe is going so far negative that I should just stop playing.

That said, both KO and Red 7 are more efficient systems. I would also mention KISS, by Fred Renzy, which counts 6 1/2 cards, less than KO or Red 7.

The Wizard provided a testimonial published in the Speed Count book. I know he later posted some qualification to his testimonial. I would love to have the Wiz analyze Speed Count/OPP and how it relates to other systems. The authors of both SC/OPP understand that the system is not as efficient as traditional +/- systems, but if you can't execute the other systems that scarcely matters. What I would appreciate the Wiz weighting in with is an analysis that confirms/disproves SC/OPP's performance such as it is! Until then, I put my faith in Arnold Snyder.

Quote: joehypnosis

That said, both KO and Red 7 are more efficient systems. I would also mention KISS, by Fred Renzy, which counts 6 1/2 cards, less than KO or Red 7.

I believe you have a mixup here - both Red 7 and KISS III count 7 1/2 cards. Red 7 counts 2-6 and red 7s (hence the name) as +1, aces and faces -1. KISS III counts 3-7 and the black 2s as +1, aces and faces -1. KO actually counts 8 cards, 2-7 +1, aces and faces -1.

*for the purposes of this discussion, all 10-valued cards considered the same.

My thoughts on the OPP count. First of all I am a believer in playing a simple count and have on a number of occasions argued in favor of simpler level 1 type counts vs higher level counts for most players and that includes most serious and professional players. I am in my ninth year of supporting myself solely from AP play, and most of that is blackjack play and most of that time I have used and continue to use the level 1, hi-lo, although I did experiment with a level two, RPC for 18 months during that time before reverting back to hi-lo.

Now the claim to fame with the OPP count is that it is easier than a level one count like hi-lo or K-O, but captures about 80% of the advantage. Now here's my thoughts on this claim: Hi-lo and K-O, both level one counts are pretty simple. You are only counting plus or minus 1 for each card that you count. This is what makes them a level one count. The difference between the hi-lo and K-O is that hi-lo you need to convert the running count to a true count by dividing by number of remaining decks to be played. For players that find this step too hard, using K-O eliminates the true count conversion with almost identical advantage of hi-lo. So these two industry standards are both pretty simple. If you really need to find an easier method, which again is OPP counts big selling point, you might already be in trouble and maybe should reconsider if you should even be trying to gain an advantage. The second issue that I have with this claim to fame is the 'captures 80% of the advantage' claim. That 20% loss is per hand. It is like interest that gets compounded as you lose 20% hand after hand after hand, this actual advantage lost becomes much greater. The best article I have seen explaining the difference was an article on the free pages of BJ21, which I am linking to, hoping that this is not against the rules. If it is, my apologizes to the Wizard in advance.

http://www.bj21.com/boards/free/free_board/index.cgi?noframes;read=147792

In closing, my recommendation is to learn one of the standard level one counts, hi-lo or K-O, rather than cut corners with OPP. I guess the exception would be if you really find learning a full level one count to difficult and you are a very casual players, hoping to just turn the house edge to an even game or just barely in your favor, maybe play a breakeven game while earning some comps, rather than trying to win any real money.

Quote: AcesAndEights

I believe you have a mixup here - both Red 7 and KISS III count 7 1/2 cards. Red 7 counts 2-6 and red 7s (hence the name) as +1, aces and faces -1. KISS III counts 3-7 and the black 2s as +1, aces and faces -1. KO actually counts 8 cards, 2-7 +1, aces and faces -1.

*for the purposes of this discussion, all 10-valued cards considered the same.

____________________________________________________

Right, and KISS I is 6 1/2 cards.

Quote: joehypnosis

____________________________________________________

Right, and KISS I is 6 1/2 cards.

Ah right, I had forgotten about the intermediate versions of KISS.

Thanks for all the replies,and link from kewlj. And yes I am probally just being lazy and worry about an accurate conversion to TC. Hope the Wizard jumps in on this one. Couple questions on the hi-lo count. On a 6deck game ,when do you make the conversion with 80% penetration and after you convert to TC do you keep counting and recalculate the tc as you go or just use the TC for the rest of the shoe?

That is an unbalanced count, usually a side-count of Aces is needed (2-5 vs. 10-values).

There is also one that goes 2,3,4,6,7,8 + 1, the 5 is +2 and the 10-values are -2. Not simple enough, but its out there.

Quote: mycran

Thanks for all the replies,and link from kewlj. And yes I am probally just being lazy and worry about an accurate conversion to TC. Hope the Wizard jumps in on this one. Couple questions on the hi-lo count. On a 6deck game ,when do you make the conversion with 80% penetration and after you convert to TC do you keep counting and recalculate the tc as you go or just use the TC for the rest of the shoe?

You recalculate the true count after every hand, based on how many decks are remaining. After that hand, you discard the true count, go back to the running count, and then re-calculate the true count again. This is why balanced counts are harder than unbalanced - you have to keep the RC in the back of your head while you size your bet and make strategy decisions based on the TC. I personally am really bad at it, which is why I go unbalanced. But to be honest, I never gave Hi-Lo a fair shake :).

Quote: AcesAndEights

You recalculate the running count after every hand, based on how many decks are remaining.

I think you meant to say, you 'recalculate the true count after every hand ...'

In any case, I've never used any count other than hi/lo and it's been effective for me.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

You dont have to recalculate the TC after every hand. Its pretty straight forward and simple. Take a 6 deck shoe with half of it dealt and a RC of 9. This is a TC of 3. Now you play another hand and the RC goes to 11, whats the TC? 3 3/4 or aproximately 4. That easy. As for me, I dont even convert except for the index plays and even those I dont need a conversion. All my bets are based off RC alone.

It's a fair statement that after some practice, it's isn't too difficult to estimate TC from the RC and the decks remaining, but doing so is still just a shortcut for making the calculation. One cannot base bets off RC alone, it has to be a combination of RC and remaining decks. A simple example, an RC of 8 with 5 decks left is vastly different from a RC with 2 decks remaining.

I like double deck games because the true count is almost the same as the running count.

[/sucks thumb. drools.]

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'll give an example of my betting. Lets say my spread is $100-$1200. In a 6 deck shoe with a RC of 10 at the beginning I'll bet $500. If its 10 near the end, I'll bet $1100.

You're essentially betting based off of the TC, but just an estimated TC. I do something similar, basically thinking of the count as a fraction, with the numerator being the RC and the denominator being decks renaming.

So with a RC of 12 with 4 decks left, I see a 12/4 in my head. I know this is the same as 3, but it makes it easier for me to keep track of without having to think too hard. This way, if the count changes to something strange, like an RC of 11 and 3.5 decks, for a count of 11/3.5, I'd basically also estimate this at (slightly more than) 3, which is close enough. Basically, I just don't let the fractions make me think too hard, I just estimate - and I'm usually really close.


This method allows me to keep a TC, rather than an RC at all times.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'll give an example of my betting. Lets say my spread is $100-$1200. In a 6 deck shoe with a RC of 10 at the beginning I'll bet $500. If its 10 near the end, I'll bet $1100.

I understand what you're doing and it makes sense . Personally I prefer to calculate the TC and drop the fraction, it's not too difficult. I was just trying to point out for the benefit of the OP, that the statement

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

All my bets are based off RC alone.

isn't exactly true, you still need to know approx how many decks remain. In other words if I were to cover up the shoe and the discard rack and I informed a player that the RC was X, one wouldn't be able to bet size appropriately with just that information alone.

Quote: MidwestAP

I think you meant to say, you 'recalculate the true count after every hand ...'

In any case, I've never used any count other than hi/lo and it's been effective for me.

Yes. I read that post like 4 times and still missed that error, >:o. Fixed in my original post.

Good info here about how folks use the running count + decks remaining to size their bets. IBYA is correct in that the process I was describing is "by the book," and once you get good at it, you can take shortcuts like he does. But you have to be certain in your ability, or you will be overbetting/underbetting your advantage.