Comparison of card counting techniques
trying to see if counting techniques would make it more interesting.
speed count: count 2-6 and minus # of people (players + dealer) each round of play.
if count = +4, increase bet.
http://www.777.com/blackjack/speed-count-blackjack-card-counting
knock out: counts 2-7 and Ten-Ace
Red 7: counts 2-6 and Red 7s, and Ten-Ace
(very similar to knock out)
high low: counts 2-6 and ten-ace then divide by # of decks left to get true count.
(easy to estimate # of decks left by looking at discard pile?)
- reviewed to be the most optimal of counting techniques.
Ace-Five: Counts only Aces and fives. very little advantage. basically decreases HE to 0% if s17 game.
- ie: You're playing for comps
for a beginner, it Seems like Ace-Five is the easiest, followed by speed count.
then hi low.
why use knock out/red 7, reko?
seems almost as hard but much less powerful. (still more powerful than sc)
Quote: 100xOddsI don't play blackjack because it seems so mechanical by following basic strategy.
trying to see if counting techniques would make it more interesting.
speed count: count 2-6 and minus # of people (players + dealer) each round of play.
if count = +4, increase bet.
http://www.777.com/blackjack/speed-count-blackjack-card-counting
knock out: counts 2-7 and Ten-Ace
Red 7: counts 2-6 and Red 7s, and Ten-Ace
(very similar to knock out)
high low: counts 2-6 and ten-ace then divide by # of decks left to get true count.
(easy to estimate # of decks left by looking at discard pile?)
- reviewed to be the most optimal of counting techniques.
Ace-Five: Counts only Aces and fives. very little advantage. basically decreases HE to 0% if s17 game.
- You're playing for comps
for a beginner, it Seems like Ace-Five is the easiest, followed by speed count.
then hi low.
why use knock out/red 7, reko?
seems almost as hard but much less powerful. (still more powerful than sc)
Not everyone wants to do true count conversion. The last three counts you mentioned are unbalanced and do not require any conversion. They can get you the money and a player is better off with a count where he or she makes the least mistakes. Anything less than these counts would be useless for the serious player. I'm not saying that they can't break even or show a tiny profit but many players don't realize the huge spread needed and ultimately the variance that comes with it, especially in shoe games.
Quote: 100xOddswhy use knock out/red 7, reko?
seems almost as hard but much less powerful. (still more powerful than sc)
if you can't reasonably estimate the number of decks remaining (covered shoe/discard tray? not side-counting the number of rounds/cards dealt?), using the 7's to keep track of approximately how many decks have been played is helpful.
Some people have trouble doing the true count conversion, even if they can see the discard tray. That's the advantage that KO/REKO/R7 offer - no TC conversion.
Quote: 100xOddswhy use knock out/red 7, reko?
seems almost as hard but much less powerful. (still more powerful than sc)
The much simpler KO compares very favorably to Hi-low.
Each has it's advantages under certain conditions as these charts show:
KO vs. Hi-Low
Quote: TankoThe much simpler KO compares very favorably to Hi-low.
Each has it's advantages under certain conditions as these charts show:
KO vs. Hi-Low
thx.
"higher spreads favor KO"
um.. wouldn't this attract heat more??
(1-15 spread vs 1-10)
Quote: 100xOdds"higher spreads favor KO"
um.. wouldn't this attract heat more??
(1-15 spread vs 1-10)
I stopped counting long ago.
But to answer your question;
The count used in KO begins at -20 for a six-deck game.
The KO player doesn't have an advantage until the count reaches -4.
You only start increasing your bets at -4 and end at +4.
You won't be making many ten unit bets and attracting heat.
Your average bet over the course of 500 hands will be less than two betting units.
That's comparable to a craps player betting 2X odds.
Most important.
If you are not prepared on occasion to lose splits and doubles at the ten unit bet level, then you lose much of the advantage that counting has.
