Red Seven strategy variations chart (Illustrious 18)

Hi; I have been trying to compile an accurate chart for play variation using the Red Seven Count for 6D,H17 games.

The best I have found is this chart. Because I start with a -12 count at 6 deck games, I have changed the numbers, and am hoping someone can tell me if I am making a mistake or not, or am even using an accurate chart for my game type.



Take insurance at (>=) +3
16 v 9 hit; stand at (>=) +9
16 v 10 hit; stand at (>=) -6
15 v 10 hit; stand at (>=) +5
13 v 2 stand; hit at (<=) -11 ----- is this correct?
13 v 3 stand; hit at (<=) -16
12 v 2 hit; stand at (>=) +4
12 v 3 hit; stand at (>=) -1
12 v 4 stand; hit at (>=) -6 --------- these dont seem right
12 v 5 stand; hit at (>=) -11 --------- these dont seem right
12 v 6 stand; hit at (>=) -12 --------- these dont seem right
11 v A hit; double at (>=) -2
10 v 10 hit; double at (>=) +4
10 v A hit; double at (>=) +4
9 v 2 hit; double at (>=) -3
9 v 7 hit; double at (>=) +4
10, 10 v 5 stand; split at +7
10, 10 v 6 stand; split at +6


Surrender/Stand:
15 v 9 S/S at (>=) +2
15 v 10 S/S at (>=) -7
15 V A S/S at (>=) -1
14 v 10 S/S at (>=) +2



If anyone could verify these numbers I would very much appreciate it. Thanks

Do you have Blackbelt In Blackjack by Arnold Snyder?

Quote: 1BB

Do you have Blackbelt In Blackjack by Arnold Snyder?

No I do not. I will go pick it up today if you think it is a good resource. Is that where I would find indices explaining 6D,H17 strategy exceptions for the red seven system?

I do believe this chart came from a site or article by Snyder, though I have since been unable to find its source.

I just dug out my copy. It's from 1999 and has no index charts. Perhaps the 2005 edition has something.

1. I'm new to card counting, so forgive anything stupid, but are the "Illustrious 18" the 18 most profitable alterations to basic strategy a player should make based on various count totals?

2. If yes, approximately what percentage of the total benefits of changed play due to good/bad counts would learning those 18 get me? What I mean is, if I learned those 18 changes to my play based on good/bad counts and nothing else, would I be capturing 90%-ish of the available benefits or would I be capturing only 50%-ish or something?

Thanks in advance.

PS: In sniffing around the term "Illustrious 18" I came across an indication that the book "Blackjack Attack" by Schlesinger(?) has lots of I-18 info. Might that be the book you guys are looking for?

deleted

Quote: hmmm23

1. I'm new to card counting, so forgive anything stupid, but are the "Illustrious 18" the 18 most profitable alterations to basic strategy a player should make based on various count totals?

2. If yes, approximately what percentage of the total benefits of changed play due to good/bad counts would learning those 18 get me? What I mean is, if I learned those 18 changes to my play based on good/bad counts and nothing else, would I be capturing 90%-ish of the available benefits or would I be capturing only 50%-ish or something?

Thanks in advance.

PS: In sniffing around the term "Illustrious 18" I came across an indication that the book "Blackjack Attack" by Schlesinger(?) has lots of I-18 info. Might that be the book you guys are looking for?

The I18 was designed for Hi-Lo so there may be some tweaking for other counts. The benefit is about 80% for shoes and 75% for single deck. If you wong out you won't have to be concerned with the negative ones. Be sure to learn the Fab 4 surrender as well.

Quote: 1BB

I just dug out my copy. It's from 1999 and has no index charts. Perhaps the 2005 edition has something.

I will go check out the different versions and post what I find here. In the meantime, anyone with an idea how to calculate the correct play versus what I originally posted would be much welcomed. I am fairly certain that "12 v 4 stand; hit at (>=) -6", among others are wrong plays, and this is just common sense.

I am not sure if it is an error in the chart, or in my math

Quote: 1BB

The I18 was designed for Hi-Lo so there may be some tweaking for other counts. The benefit is about 80% for shoes and 75% for single deck. If you wong out you won't have to be concerned with the negative ones. Be sure to learn the Fab 4 surrender as well.

Thanks 1BB, that 80% figure's reassuring. I might be able to memorize 18 alterations to play, but definitely not hundreds.

How would you say the benefit from counting breaks down for the following groups: Bet size, Insurance bets, and Alterations to play? Do the benefits from alterations to play dwarf the other two? Are there other kinds of bets that counting improves?

Thanks for your help.

Quote: hmmm23

Thanks 1BB, that 80% figure's reassuring. I might be able to memorize 18 alterations to play, but definitely not hundreds.

How would you say the benefit from counting breaks down for the following groups: Bet size, Insurance bets, and Alterations to play? Do the benefits from alterations to play dwarf the other two? Are there other kinds of bets that counting improves?

Thanks for your help.

You ask some tough questions! All these things go together along with game selection and wonging. I have no idea how it breaks down but your advantage in shoe games is very thin just straight counting.

There were no books on blackjack by Wong or Snyder at my bookstores :(. After some more digging I found another index that is supposed to be tailored to the Red Seven count, 6 Deck, H17 games. This is (I18+F4)

The count still seems inappropriate for plays, explained below. Can anyone confirm this?



12 vs 3 - Double/Hit at count of +2 [this doesnt seem correct to double down against a 3 with a 2 when probability of a 10 is increased]
12 vs 2 - Double/Hit at count of +3 See above
13 vs 2 - Hit at count of -1 [-1 indicates that there are more 10 cards as I have counted down from -12, was this meant to be -13?]
12 v 4 - Hit at count of -0.5 [same as above, was this meant to be -12.5?]
12 v 5 - Hit at count of -2 [same as above, was this meant to be -14?]
12 v 6 - Hit at count of -3 [same as above, was this meant to be -15?]
13 v 3 - Hit at count of -2 [same as above, was this meant to be -14?]

Every blackjack book known to man that's worth a crap is here. blackjackbookslibrary.com

haha ok ill check it out. I have since found snyders blackbelt in blackjack book. There is a decent section devoted to red seven with a variation chart. I am unsure if it is for S17 or H17 shoes, or if that makes much of a difference anyways. I will probably use a combination of all the charts I find, if it makes sense.

Ok so for anyone researching variations charts for Red Seven counting strategy against 6D H17, this is what I have come up with. If anyone notices an error please let me know and I will correct it. I will be basing my flashcards off these numbers. MY count starts at -12, so for instance, the count will increase by +15 units before I choose to take insurance; The count only has to drop by -1 units for me to hit a 12 vs a 4... etc:

Take insurance at +3

0-0 vs 5 split at +5
0-0 vs 6 split at +4

9 vs 2 double at +1
9 vs 7 double at +3
10 vs A double at +3

11 vs A hit at -13
12 vs 4 hit at -13
12 vs 5 hit at -14
12 vs 6 hit at -15
13 vs 2 hit at -13
13 vs 3 hit at -14

12 vs 3 stand at +2
12 vs 2 stand at +3
14 vs 0 stand at +3
15 vs 9 stand at +2
15 v 0 stand at +4
15 vs A stand at +1
16 vs 9 stand at +5
16 vs 0 stand at 0

I use a standard Hi/Lo count, but I like your questions. If we can manage a "translation" of your Red 7 numbers to standard TC numbers, I think you've asked some interesting things.

First, a question: Does Red 7 just use a Running Count (RC) and not demand translation to a True Count (TC)? If so, how can that be?

For comparison/translation purposes, here's the Wizard's "standard" I-18 F-4 plays which I use: https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/card-counting/high-low/

1. Hit 12 vs 4 at TC "+ 0"

I think that should be "- 0," since it's a change we'd only make with a negative count, but the ROI's do support a surprisingly fast change in play.

Using your rules, https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/9/6dh17r4/ ,

and a Player's 10,2 vs 4:

Stand - .206
Hit - .211

With basically identical results, even a card or two in remaining deck composition can dictate Hit or Stand.

2. Hit 12 vs 5 at TC - 2.

Stand - .161
Hit - .189

Does a TC of - 2 roughly translate to a Red 7 chart number of + 1 (or your more personalized chart number of - 11)?

3. Hit 12 vs 6 at TC - 1

Stand - .121
Hit - .171

Given that the ROI difference between Stand and Hit under your rules is less than 3% for 12 vs 5, but 5% for 12 vs 6, I think you're right to be suspicious of Red 7's tiny difference in RC required to make the play alteration for each. Basically, it looks to me like a bigger difference than just - 11 to - 12 on your personalized chart should be required to flip 12 vs 6 than 12 vs 5.

4. Hit 13 vs 2 at TC - 1

Stand - .289
Hit - .308

With such similar results, the quick change called for by both our systems looks right.

The original Red 7 as imagined by Snyder did not have a full set of indexes, just a few deviations. 16 v 10, insurance, maybe 1 or 2 more. I have the 2005 edition and there are no tables, just a list of a few deviations.

If you want to get fancier with index numbers and stick to the Red 7, I would recommend getting the software from qfit.com and generating your own indexes.