negative counts

I've always had trouble counting quickly in negative numbers; thus, whenever learning a count, I adjust it so that the low count can never be less than zero. My question: why don't systems authors do the same thing? Why do they assign an initial running count a negative number, and how do they decide what number? Seems needlessly difficult and arbitrary.

There are counts that eliminate the need to centralize around "0" and thus go "positive and negative." They also eliminate the need for a "true count" and thus you don't have to convert anything. There are always different ways to approach the game, with many different working count systems out there. The trouble comes when you try to get more complex with your counting technique you'll often make more player mistakes (conversion errors, betting errors, and playing errors).

It's ironic really... To try to make it easier usually it ends up leading to more mistakes and costing more EV. If you're trying to learn Hi/Low and you have trouble in negative counts, then you clearly haven't practiced nearly enough. It's the same thing both ways.

One tip... if you know a foreign language, whenever the count is negative, count in that foreign language. Then you don't have to say "plus" or "minus" in your head and you'll never "flip the sign" and mess your count up. If it's in a foreign language, it's negative! =p

Quote: OrkFromPluto

I've always had trouble counting quickly in negative numbers; thus, whenever learning a count, I adjust it so that the low count can never be less than zero. My question: why don't systems authors do the same thing? Why do they assign an initial running count a negative number, and how do they decide what number? Seems needlessly difficult and arbitrary.

If you actually knew the system, you would know why. It's due to the fact the count is unbalanced (I assume you're using an unbalanced count). The starting [negative] number makes sense, I believe it is the number of decks times the total sum of 1 deck's count. ie: REKO's sum is +4, so you'd start at -4 * number-of-decks-in-shoe.

Quote: OrkFromPluto

I adjust it so that the low count can never be less than zero. My question: why don't systems authors do the same thing?

0 as as useful a threshold as any other, and for a lot of other people, it makes sense.

You got to be a player to realize.