Comparison of different card counting systems?

Hi folks, do any of you know of any good resources that compare the relative advantages/disadvantages of different card counting systems?

I currently use hi-lo, but am looking to learn another method. Before I invest time/energy into learning a new system though, I'd like to weigh my options.

Recommendations on articles/books that compare things like playing efficiency, betting efficiency, difficulty of learning, etc would be much appreciated!

Page 172 of Norm Wattenberger's Modern Black (available free at his website) appears to be just what you are looking for. I have posted a link, which may or may not be permissible and may be removed.....I don't know.

https://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage172.htm

Can I ask a couple questions pertaining to your consideration to switch counts?

What kind of games do you most often play? (single deck, double deck, shoe)

What stakes are you playing?

What kind of improvement are you thinking you might realize?

I ask this because in my opinion, Hi-lo is more than adequate for the vast majority of players and that includes professional players such as myself. As a matter of fact most professional or serious players that I know, use hi-lo and of those that do use a so called 'higher' level count, many are older, long-term players, who are using a count they learned a longtime ago, when their may have been more benefit from using such a count.

One famous author of a well know book that "attacks' Blackjack (lol) has stated that while he still plays level 2, Revere Point Count, which he learned decades ago and still plays like 150 index plays, becaue having learned them, he can't "un-learn" them, IF HE WAS STARTING OUT TODAY, he would play hi-lo and learn and play far few index plays. That's the kind of statement that speaks volumes, IMO.

In today's world, with worse conditions, any such benefit of a so called higher level count, really shrinks to almost nothing. I believe you are better off keeping things simple, with hi-lo or another level one count, and ESPECIALLY if you already know and play such a count. There just is minimal if any benefit to switching.

Thanks for the replies kewlj. I play mostly double deck, with $10 to 25 mins, spreading to $75- $150.

The wild swings possible in the game make me pretty nervous (hence the spreads erroring on the conservative side). I'm hoping one way to smooth out the fluctuations is by using a more accurate counting method.

Quote: harikarilord

Thanks for the replies kewlj. I play mostly double deck, with $10 to 25 mins, spreading to $75- $150.

The wild swings possible in the game make me pretty nervous (hence the spreads erroring on the conservative side). I'm hoping one way to smooth out the fluctuations is by using a more accurate counting method.

Your counting method might net you some more "change" per hour, but the variance you're going to inevitably see in the game doesn't care about your counting method. Standard Deviation = 1.1*AvgBet. Standard Deviation for any number of hands = OriginalSD*Sqrt(NumHands). Notice these have absolutely nothing to do with your counting system but more your spread (affecting your AvgBet), which inevitably needs to be a certain amount to be profitable, regardless of the system you use.

If you're thinking about switching to lessen the fluctuations, I wouldn't switch... Just my opinion.

Quote: Romes

If you're thinking about switching to lessen the fluctuations, I wouldn't switch... Just my opinion.

I completely concur.

I have been involved in more 'which count' debate/discussions than any other topic on blackjack sites that I am on. This is a hugely polarizing topic, with knowledgeable and successful players deeply dug in on both sides of the debate. I am a proponent of simplicity as I honestly believe Hi-lo or K-O or another similar level one count (not A-5 or speed count) is more than adequate for 99% of players, including players that play professionally, like myself (most professional players and teams that I know or know of use hi-lo).

But in reality, it is not so much that I am a proponent of hi-lo, which has served me well, it is more that I am an opponent of the false and misleading information out there, influencing players to switch counts in search of unrealistic expectations and gains in profit or reduction in variance and swings. Claims made by proponents of higher level counts are just not realistic and often they will go as far as to cherry pick data and use flawed simulations to exaggerate their points.

Just yesterday on another site, one of the proponent guys used a sim, to compare two different counts, or in this case it was actually a variation of a single count, Hi-lo vs hi-lo lite (hi-lo lite is fewer and rounded index plays). Honest simulations show the difference in these approaches to be negligible. A difference of pennies. But this guy's simulation showed a difference of 15%, which would be significant. He then revealed that he used different betting ramps, betting more money at the same advantage of the position that he wanted to show in a favorable lite than the other position. Give me a break! That's apples to oranges, in no way a fair comparison.

Another commonly used tactic by the proponents of higher level counts is refusing to acknowledge the existence of higher error rates with higher level counts, involving adding or subtracting 3 or 4 numbers as opposed to 2 numbers, or side counting additional numbers. Scientific evidence confirms that the simpler the task the lower the error rate. As a task grows more difficult, even slightly, the error rate increases.

These people not only refuse to accept this standard recognized fact, but counter with things like "with enough practice, I can play just as efficiently" or "more complex tasks keep their mind sharper". Sounds great, but it's just not factually true. If you are not going to account for some sort of higher error rate, which will reduce or eliminate any gain, you are not being honest as to real life expectations.

So, I am really a proponent of having accurate information for players, especially newer players to look at and not some cherry-picked data or information that will wrongly influence them. At that point if they choose to play a higher level count, that's fine and dandy. Just have reasonable expectations. For most players doing so won't be beneficial and for almost all players that currently know and play another count like hi-lo, of K-O efficiently, it will not be beneficial, as they will realize little if any difference in real world play.

Thanks again for the replies Romes and kewlj. I want to poke at the question of standard deviations one more time. I'm not an expert at the math, but intuitively I would think a level-two count system would help smooth out bankroll fluctuations.

Reasoning: with a level-two count system, your knowledge of the remaining deck composition is more nuanced. Therefore, when the higher-count method tells you that you have an advantage, it's more likely to be accurate. So, *when you place your big bets*, you're more likely to be placing them at a point when you have an advantage. In other words, big-bet losses are less likely with a higher count system. Which translates to less extreme fluctuations in your bankroll.

Is this reasoning sound?

In general, using a level 2 counting system is more accurate than a level 1 system but more error prone. The advantage is approx. 5-10% and you will experience a slightly lower standard deviation because your advantage is more accurate at each true count. You will need to size your bets accurately and ideally bet proportionally to your advantage to maximise your win rate. For this to work you will need to select the right game, calculate your bankroll requirements so you can survive the downswings and minimise your risk of ruin. If you are able to do all of this accurately, count error free and apply the relevant indices at the correct true count in a casino environment then in theory you should enjoy a slight advantage over a level 1 system in the long run. Good luck.

Not sure what kewlj wrote, but I agree with whatever it is that he did write. He's probably (actually no, he IS definitely) the go-to guy around here when it comes to card counting in BJ.

Here's a comparison chart of different counts: https://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

Hopefully my post won't be too long, but chances are, it will be long. :(

Depends on what kinds of games you play. If you're playing only single/double deck games, IMO, you're going to want to improve your counting system [at least, I would]. IMO, HiOpt I or HiOpt II is a great system for pitch games (single/double deck). You'll probably also want to side count Aces along with it. For me, I don't know if that's worth it (mostly because I don't play much BJ anymore).

If you play shoe games, you're almost certainly going to want to stay with HiLo. Lots of players look for "better systems" to win more money....but you're not going to be winning a bunch more money with a super complex system. Instead, and it depends on your circumstances, you'll be far better off:

-Joining a team that plays HiLo (any team I've ever heard of, uses HiLo)
-Learning to back-count multiple tables
-Count the table you're playing (obviously) and count the table beside your table. If your table gets cold and the other is better, hop on over there [it doesn't have to be +EV to jump over...but it's better than a real cold TC].
-Learn more advanced strategies, like shuffle tracking, Ace-sequencing, etc.

Each of those depend on your environment. Are you looking to take BJ more seriously, or do you play every now and then? Are you interested in joining a team? What kind of a network do you have with other APs? Do you travel to play BJ, or do you play at the same local casino any/every time you go [if so, are there good conditions at your local casino for some of those opportunities]?


Being able to back-count two tables doesn't help you if you're playing single deck games. And having a HiOpt II w/ ASC doesn't help you if you're trying to back-count two tables.


Or perhaps you play a mixture of shoe games as well as pitch games. I used to play both, so I decided on switching to an "easy" level-2 count (Zen). It's easy enough and not so convoluted for shoe games, while maintaining good strength for pitch games.


Remember when you first starting learning BJ, learning how to count HiLo, learning basic strategy, the index plays, true count conversion, etc.? Frustrating, wasn't it? Well, it's similar when you move up to a different count (ESPECIALLY if you're trying to side-count (aces for ex.)].


Being able to count 2 tables at once (with HiLo) is significantly better than playing one table with some advanced counting system. You'll be getting much more of those juicy +TC counts where you make your money. So what if you miss a card or 2 on the other table every now and then. Those ultra-fancy counts look cool on paper, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're going to be unstoppable, everything's going to turn around, you'll be a winner every session or even more frequently.


But.....it all comes down to you, what you're motivated in doing, your conditions, how you want to proceed, etc.


IMO: Check out some different counts, read about them and figure out what they're good at and worse at. But don't start learning anything new. The link I posted has some good stuff. Also read into side-counting (aces, probably), and the benefit it provides (it's usually something like...you only use the side count of Aces when making an insurance decision, for example). But ALSO try counting 2 separate decks at once and see if you can handle it. Obviously don't go super fast, go super slow if anything. It doesn't take much practice to get a decent grasp on how to do it. Then go to the casino, and give it a shot...see if you can back-count two tables. Don't need to do it seriously or have any intentions on wonging in to either game...just practice! The shoes don't need to be fresh and new, just try it mid-shoe FOR PRACTICE. Remember, it's common enough for one to go positive and the other to go negative, and once the negative one goes negative-enough, you can abandon counting that table.


Good luck, and don't make a decision too soon.

EDIT: Another benefit of a simpler count is...it's easy! You don't have to concentrate on every card, adding or subtracting larger numbers at a time, etc. Not that I'm saying to use HiLo because it's easier...but because you can focus on other things at well. You can talk to other players, chat with the dealer, take notice of what is going on in the pit (boss going to phone, floor people huddling up, supervisors taking notice of you, a team of security guards and shift supervisor approaching your table, etc.).

Quote: harikarilord

Thanks again for the replies Romes and kewlj. I want to poke at the question of standard deviations one more time. I'm not an expert at the math, but intuitively I would think a level-two count system would help smooth out bankroll fluctuations.

Reasoning: with a level-two count system, your knowledge of the remaining deck composition is more nuanced. Therefore, when the higher-count method tells you that you have an advantage, it's more likely to be accurate. So, *when you place your big bets*, you're more likely to be placing them at a point when you have an advantage. In other words, big-bet losses are less likely with a higher count system. Which translates to less extreme fluctuations in your bankroll.

Is this reasoning sound?

Your main issue is you think as the count gets higher you're "more likely to win"... or I suppose "less likely to lose." Not only are some of the differences in betting correlation negligible, but again each system tells you when you have an advantage, and that doesn't mean you'll win more / lose less FREQUENTLY. The dealer hand is just as likely to get blackjack as you. Where you make your money in the game is you get paid extra for blackjacks, the dealer does not. You can split and double to poor dealer cards, and in higher counts they will bust slightly more often. This helps you get paid more, NOT win more frequently. This is how you beat the game of blackjack... with blackjacks, doubles, splits, and dealer busts... not with a "high count winning more often."

Different counts don't effect the standard deviation of blackjack (to a worthwhile amount, in my opinion), and your EV (as discussed before) is: EV = AvgBet*NumHands*AvgEdge. With your Standard Deviation being SD = OriginalSD * Sqrt(NumHands) = (1.1*AvgBet) * Sqrt(NumHands).

I again hope you see in these equations where the only variable you COULD be manipulating with a different counting system is the AverageBet... which if you have a more accurate system perhaps it tells you to bet more, more often... which would actually RAISE your SD's and fluctuations!

Your level 2 and level 3 count systems sound 10x more sophisticated. I've done multiple counts, and they're quite similar all around. Other than being more error prone with a higher count, they really only get you pennies on the dollar more. Remember, just because you've "more accurately" deciphered you have an advantage doesn't mean you're more likely to win the hand.

Really great posts by RS and Romes.

Here's the thing with card counting. The 'math guys' always want to squeeze every last drop of advantage. I understand that is their nature (being math guys).

But in the real world there is something called "diminishing returns" and it works like this: You capture the vast majority of advantage by doing X amount of work. Now by working much harder, which we will call XX or XXX amount of work, you increase your return by a very disproportionally small amount. Very 'diminishing' return for the extra work involved.

In Card counting this concept applies to two areas. Level 2 and 3 counts (and side counts) as opposed to simpler level 1 counts like Hi-lo and also in the number of strategy change or index plays that one chooses to memorize and employ. In the index play part of the conversation, something like 60% of the available gain is achieved with only the top 3 index plays, Insurance, 16 vs 10 and 15 vs 10. Something like 80-85% of all available gain is achieved by playing the top 20 or so index or strategy change plays (Don Schlesinger's Illustrious 18). Playing more than 20 or so ( I actually play a bout 30) just begins to net you very miniscule gains. I call it chasing pennies. :/

But it is even worse than this because even a slightly higher error rate in either of these areas, will wipe out any small gain achieved on paper or in simulations. Proponents of higher counts and more index plays, usually refuse to acknowledge any such higher error rate, something that is scientifically proven when comparing simple tasks to tasks even slightly more complex. They just are refusing to accept the science, so they have these gains or improvements in results that show up on paper or in simulations that just aren't there in real world play.

Furthermore there are some advanced techniques that you can apply that correlate much better to a simple count like high low than higher level counts. One of the things that I do is tracking multiple tables and jumping immediately from a negative or neutral situation to a much more favorable situation. This allows me to see and play FAR more positive and max bet count situations which translates to significant increase (even allowing for increased error rate). We aren't talking 5-10% (which isn't there in reality), we are talking 50-75%, or more.

And this is just one example of such an advanced technique, there are others that I won't mention and almost all of these things work better with a simple type count. These techniques aren't available all the time, but when they present themselves they are actually worth the extra effort as opposed to the concept of higher level counts, which translates to pennies and only on paper (or simulations).

My final two thoughts are these: If you are looking to improve results by working harder, choose something that is going to make a significant difference......Dollars, not pennies. And two, there is a reason most professional players solo as well as teams, including most of the 'famous' teams everyone knows about employs Hi-lo and not some higher level count that can squeeze out a few more pennies for much more work. I mean surely the MIT team had the ability to have played a level 2 or 3 count with side counts. It's just not worth the effort. Diminishing returns.

Was deciding to reply on here or bjtheforum =p, but I love the "Diminishing Returns" statement. I think those words really do sum it up quite well. The more you do, the less you're doing it for. I guess everyone might have a different line of "worth it" or not, but I think it's obvious where a couple of us stand.

Quote: Romes

Was deciding to reply on here or bjtheforum =p, but I love the "Diminishing Returns" statement. I think those words really do sum it up quite well. The more you do, the less you're doing it for. I guess everyone might have a different line of "worth it" or not, but I think it's obvious where a couple of us stand.

You are better off responding here. The BJTF 'opponents' crowd, the small but LOUD group will tear my post (which I reposted there) to shreds with their illogical rationale. There will be pages of formulas and simulation results "proving" me wrong. LOL. I knew that going in. I just wanted to get it on the record. :)

By the way, your "worth it" comment is worth noting. People do have different ideas as to what is worth their while, time and effort. Many of my opponents on this subject think I don't realize this.....I do.

Romes,

In general, I agree with your practical advice to the reader and with the work you have done in your three articles on card counting. However, I would like you to consider the following points.

If card counting is done properly then the player will win slightly more hands at high true counts than usual and therefore win money because their bets are larger when utilising player friendly rules such as splitting, doubling, getting paid 3:2 on a blackjack. Their advantage also comes from applying indices which are variations in basic strategy at particular true counts. In the best case, the players advantage is no more than 4% - 5% so there is still plenty of room for losing. That is where standard deviation comes in which is basically the risk factor in the game and I refer to your formula σ=1.1b√n where b is the bet size and n is the number of hands played. This formula applies to flat betting only. As you know card counters obtain part of their advantage by bet variation so we need to use σ=√[h∑(b²fv)/∑f] where:

σ = standard deviation
h = hands per hour
b = bet size
b² = bet size squared
f = frequency of the hand at a given true count
v = variance of the hand at a given true count

This is the correct formula for calculating the standard deviation in Blackjack where variable bets are used and it can programmed in MS Excel for any given true count range and any rule set. A similar method can be used for calculating win rates.

I will end this post now as I do not want to deviate any further from the general thread of these posts however I encourage you to consider this and I would also welcome the Wizards input.

Hey Dave, thanks for the food for thought.

When applying SD's for counters in which they're not flat-betting an average bet must be obtained. This is done in all of my spreadsheets, weighting each bet against their respective counts and frequencies of occurring. From there I've pointed out SD(1 hand) = 1.1*AvgBet, or you could also say 1.1*AvgBet*Sqrt(NumHands) though here the number of hands is 1...

Past that to find the SD for any number of hands I use something fairly similar: SD(x hands) = SD(1 hand) * Sqrt(x) = 1.1*AvgBet*Sqrt(x).

I think we're speaking the same language overall. I just wanted to point out the SD calculations does take in to account the count frequencies and a counters overall average bet within relation to them. I think you might have a slightly more accurate version, but possibly at the cost of some complexity to regular readers =).

Also, the only reason players "win more hands" in a higher count is because the dealer will bust "slightly" more often due to their rules on having to hit. Player deviations for standing (15v10, 14v10, etc) are fairly rare in that they require a fairly large TC. To that extent, the player usually doesn't have more than a 2%-3% advantage and this is at any one given time. Even with a massive TC +6 (where max bets are usually out at TC +4) the player edge is only 3% - HE, thus for a typical game would be ~2.5%. In the long run the player advantage is somewhere between around 1 and 2%. So as you stated, there's a lot of room for losing =P.

Quote: Romes

Also, the only reason players "win more hands" in a higher count is because the dealer will bust "slightly" more often due to their rules on having to hit. Player deviations for standing (15v10, 14v10, etc) are fairly rare in that they require a fairly large TC. To that extent, the player usually doesn't have more than a 2%-3% advantage and this is at any one given time. Even with a massive TC +6 (where max bets are usually out at TC +4) the player edge is only 3% - HE, thus for a typical game would be ~2.5%. In the long run the player advantage is somewhere between around 1 and 2%. So as you stated, there's a lot of room for losing =P.

Romes, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the 'slightly' higher dealer bust rate matters all that much. It doesn't really change the overall win/loss ration very much....not enough to make much difference.

What does change slightly is that with a larger 'pool' of Aces and 10 value cards to draw from there will be more BJ dealt, to both dealer and player. With the player receiving 150% payout on his BJ's, that I where the majority of this razor thin advantage comes from.

There also is a slight increase in the success rate of double downs, particularly the double downs on 9's and 10's where that surplus of Aces and tens comes into play. But again, this is secondary and relatively minor. The big part of that tiny advantage is from the slight increase in BJ's at 150% payout

Quote: kewlj

Romes, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the 'slightly' higher dealer bust rate matters all that much. It doesn't really change the overall win/loss ration very much....not enough to make much difference.

What does change slightly is that with a larger 'pool' of Aces and 10 value cards to draw from there will be more BJ dealt, to both dealer and player. With the player receiving 150% payout on his BJ's, that I where the majority of this razor thin advantage comes from.

There also is a slight increase in the success rate of double downs, particularly the double downs on 9's and 10's where that surplus of Aces and tens comes into play. But again, this is secondary and relatively minor. The big part of that tiny advantage is from the slight increase in BJ's at 150% payout

I agree with everything you wrote... I tried to quote the 'slightly' to put emphasis on how little it really changes things, but technically it does change things (no matter how small). I don't believe it changes the actual win/loss rates to any degree worth mentioning.

Quote: Romes

I agree with everything you wrote... I tried to quote the 'slightly' to put emphasis on how little it really changes things, but technically it does change things (no matter how small). I don't believe it changes the actual win/loss rates to any degree worth mentioning.

Actually, dealer busting more and player winning more as count goes up is the biggest reason why card counting works. Player start to win over 50% of the hands at +4% advantage, or TC +9 (depending on rules) in High/low count.

Wizard breaks down the benefits of various player favorable factors in this article: https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/card-counting/introduction/

Quote: BJ4Profit

Actually, dealer busting more and player winning more as count goes up is the biggest reason why card counting works. Player start to win over 50% of the hands at +4% advantage, or TC +9 (depending on rules) in High/low count.

Wizard breaks down the benefits of various player favorable factors in this article: https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/card-counting/introduction/

I don't know what you are looking at because that link doesn't seem have anything to do with this subject, but your conclusion is wrong. But here's a link on the subject.

https://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount5.htm

At true count of zero player will win 42.7% of hands. That only increases to 44% by a true count of +18, and a TC of +18 rarely occurs. At no time does the players win percentage ever go above 45%. The one thing related to hands won/loss/push that does change a bit as the count goes up is losing hands are reduced slightly and pushes increase slightly in better counts, because you will end up pushing 20 more often with the dealers. But that too is only a small change.

Again, the reason the advantage flips from a small house advantage to a small player advantage in better count is because the player will receive slightly more blackjacks at the 3:2 payoff. Hard double downs of 9, 10 win a little more frequently, which is part of that increased advantage, but the vast majority of the player advantage comes from one simple area of receiving more blackjacks at the 3:2 payoff.

Quote: kewlj

I don't know what you are looking at because that link doesn't seem have anything to do with this subject, but your conclusion is wrong. But here's a link on the subject.

https://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount5.htm

At true count of zero player will win 42.7% of hands. That only increases to 44% by a true count of +18, and a TC of +18 rarely occurs. At no time does the players win percentage ever go above 45%. The one thing related to hands won/loss/push that does change a bit as the count goes up is losing hands are reduced slightly and pushes increase slightly in better counts, because you will end up pushing 20 more often with the dealers. But that too is only a small change.

Again, the reason the advantage flips from a small house advantage to a small player advantage in better count is because the player will receive slightly more blackjacks at the 3:2 payoff. Hard double downs of 9, 10 win a little more frequently, which is part of that increased advantage, but the vast majority of the player advantage comes from one simple area of receiving more blackjacks at the 3:2 payoff.

Sorry I forgot to say that the win/loss percentage was ignoring pushes, I should have said at +4% advantage player begins to win more hands than the dealer. If ignore pushes, the player/dealer win at neutral count is 47/53, where dealer wins 6 more hands per 100 non pushed hands. That ratio changes to 50/50 at +4% advantage. Because of the thin edge card counter gets, winning even 1 more hand per 100 hands at max bet is huge.

On the link you provided, the author used LS in his simulation. Not sure what sim program he used, but with my experience with CVData, it always counts surrendered hands as lost hands (correct me if I'm wrong here), thus the discrepancy between my "break even" point and his.

If you go to the link on my post to WoO article, Wizard states that 40% of the benefit from card counting is from players' ability to stand at higher counts and dealer cannot and will bust more often. Wizard gives Insurance bets 34%, double downs 9%, and Blackjacks coming 4th at 7%.

Quote: BJ4Profit

If you go to the link on my post to WoO article, Wizard states that 40% of the benefit from card counting is from players' ability to stand at higher counts and dealer cannot and will bust more often. Wizard gives Insurance bets 34%, double downs 9%, and Blackjacks coming 4th at 7%.

It isn't clear to me what wizard is trying to say with that chart, but it isn't what you think he is saying. More standing opportunities is not why card counting works. Hopefully if he is around, he will clarify what he is trying to say because it most definitely isn't coming across correctly.

Quote: kewlj

It isn't clear to me what wizard is trying to say with that chart, but it isn't what you think he is saying. More standing opportunities is not why card counting works. Hopefully if he is around, he will clarify what he is trying to say because it most definitely isn't coming across correctly.

It's quite clear to me what Wizard is trying to say with that chart. He's not saying players get to stand more often in high count (though this is true), he's saying all standing decisions gains more EV as count goes up, thus netting the 40% benefit in card counting.

For example, standing 12-16 against dealer 6 all have the same negative EV, because you win only if the dealer busts, and the dealer busts 42% of the time in S17 and 44% in H17. However, all these plays very quickly become plus EV as count goes up, because dealer starts to bust more than 50% on 6 at moderate count. This holds true for all stand against dealer 2-6 plays, though some never gets to +EV (13 vs 2), but all will have higher EV at higher counts. Pat hand stands also gain more EV at higher counts, such as 20 vs anything but 10, 20 vs 10 actually has less EV at higher counts because the hand pushes more often.

But yeah, hope Wizard himself is around to clear it up.

Deleted

I can't remember too much in my short-term memory (e.g. phone number is tough), so I mostly played KO.

Some situations when I wanted to hold multiple numbers in my head:
(1) Back-count multiple tables.
(2) Estimating other people's upside-down cards (depends on how you assume they play - tourist, basic strategy, or fancy-weird)
- so I'd remember the actual count, true-adjusted estimate, & with unseen cards (or cards people show you).
(3) Rarely Ace-count.

Quote: BJ4Profit

It's quite clear to me what Wizard is trying to say with that chart. He's not saying players get to stand more often in high count (though this is true), he's saying all standing decisions gains more EV as count goes up, thus netting the 40% benefit in card counting.

For example, standing 12-16 against dealer 6 all have the same negative EV, because you win only if the dealer busts, and the dealer busts 42% of the time in S17 and 44% in H17. However, all these plays very quickly become plus EV as count goes up, because dealer starts to bust more than 50% on 6 at moderate count. This holds true for all stand against dealer 2-6 plays, though some never gets to +EV (13 vs 2), but all will have higher EV at higher counts. Pat hand stands also gain more EV at higher counts, such as 20 vs anything but 10, 20 vs 10 actually has less EV at higher counts because the hand pushes more often.

But yeah, hope Wizard himself is around to clear it up.

Yeah but standing decisions net 40% of the 'return' even when the 'return' is less than 100% (-EV). For example when playing basic strategy 40% of the 'return' comes from standing decisions. That is just the decision that you will make most often. It has nothing to do with where that extra little bump in EV from card counting, that turns the game +EV comes from. That extra little bump comes from the player receiving slightly more BJ's @ 3:2 payoff.

I blame the wizard for some poor wording and not making his point very clear, but that chart is not saying what you think it is saying.

I'm new to this too.... Learning the Omega-II with a partner.

Thoughts compared to Hi-Lo?

Quote: snuffkid

I'm new to this too.... Learning the Omega-II with a partner.

Thoughts compared to Hi-Lo?

I am not playing the "thoughts on hi-lo (or any other count) anymore". I get into to much trouble. lol. If you want my thoughts on the subject, they are not hard to find with a little looking. lol

But can I ask, what made you decide on Omega-II? I am also interested in the 'partner' aspect. Do you mean you and someone lese are working together to learn card counting and Omega-II? or do you mean you plan on playing together as partners? (as in a two man team)

Quote: snuffkid

I'm new to this too.... Learning the Omega-II with a partner.

Thoughts compared to Hi-Lo?

You're asking to compare a level 2 count to a level 1 count. Omega II is somewhat outdated in my opinion. If those were my only choices I would use Hi-Lo and learn as many indices as possible.

While I've got you here, lets compare two level 2 counts, Omega II and Zen. They both perform about the same but Zen is easier. You won't need the side count and that will allow you to concentrate on other things like the color of your new Ferrari. :-)

It’s worth mentioning the claims Hi-Lo is way too overcomplicated and all you really need is the Ace Five count, no indices because anything past that is just a bunch of fluff. My Aunt Libby from Wagon Mound, New Mexico won big bucks last year using the Ace Five count and she is legally blind, so obviously this is effective. No need to worry about all that fancy extra math in determining when to hit on 13vs3 because Aunt Libby is doing fine without all of that nonsense. She thinks it should be called the "Waste of time 18" as a matter of fact!

Quote: Tarzan

It’s worth mentioning the claims Hi-Lo is way too overcomplicated and all you really need is the Ace Five count, no indices because anything past that is just a bunch of fluff. My Aunt Libby from Wagon Mound, New Mexico won big bucks last year using the Ace Five count and she is legally blind, so obviously this is effective. No need to worry about all that fancy extra math in determining when to hit on 13vs3 because Aunt Libby is doing fine without all of that nonsense. She thinks it should be called the "Waste of time 18" as a matter of fact!

I hope this is satire?

You can easily just run sims on CVCX to see that A-5 isn't even profitable on most shoe games. Sounds like Aunt Libby played 3-4 times all last year and won a couple bucks each time, thus "A-5 count must work!" Anything can happen in the short run. Come back with more data when Aunt Libby has played 100k hands and report how she's doing then (With her average bet, spread, hourly EV, etc).

...If you think Hi/Low is "overcomplicated" (I think you mean 'overly complicated'), then to try to make a Jeff Foxworthy quote: "Youuuuuuuuuu might not be an AP."

Romes, I think you've been punked. :-)

Quote: 1BB

Romes, I think you've been punked. :-)

Is that the same thing as janked
I'm having a hard time keeping up....

Quote: Tarzan

My Aunt Libby from Wagon Mound, New Mexico won big bucks last year using the Ace Five count and she is legally blind,

It should be noted that Tarzan has been know to masquerade as a 6'6" female from time to time. Maybe "aunt Libby" is closer to Tarzan than he is letting on. :)

Romes, this is the same Tarzan from Norm's site, who, I can't even call him a proponent of complex counts and systems, because what he employs is so unique it can't really be compared to anything else. But in general terms, when he weighs in on one of the count debate threads, he sides with the 'proponents of complexity'.

So he is just having fun here, playing devil's advocate for the other side of the argument. :/

To find strong system (including count system) under given restriction conditions such as rules, penetration and bet-spread, I strongly recommend to use simulation software. Personally I like SBA.

Some months ago, by using SBA, I found that KO RC (so, not TKO) is very strong (means high SCORE) for Double Deck game when a technique called "Grifter's Gambit" is jointly used.

If someone has interest in the system I found, perhaps I may explain with reasonable price. But, to understand the system, needs preparation knowledge especially about SCORE. Without those knowledge, very difficult to understand.

Quote: kewlj

It should be noted that Tarzan has been know to masquerade as a 6'6" female from time to time. Maybe "aunt Libby" is closer to Tarzan than he is letting on. :)

Romes, this is the same Tarzan from Norm's site, who, I can't even call him a proponent of complex counts and systems, because what he employs is so unique it can't really be compared to anything else. But in general terms, when he weighs in on one of the count debate threads, he sides with the 'proponents of complexity'.

So he is just having fun here, playing devil's advocate for the other side of the argument. :/

It should be noted that 99.54% of the posters there don't leave their computers long enough to ever play blackjack.

Quote: susumu188

Some months ago, by using SBA, I found that KO RC (so, not TKO) is very strong (means high SCORE) for Double Deck game when a technique called "Grifter's Gambit" is jointly used.

I personally am not a fan of "Grifter's Gambit". For anyone not familiar the concept of Grifter's Gambit is spreading horizontally, meaning playing multiple spots during neutral/negative counts to eat cards, and combining and increasing the 3 spot wagers into a one spot larger wager during positive counts, to preserve counts and maximize rounds at positive count. I give credit to the notion of thinking outside the box and it was somewhat innovative for it's time, but this is a different time.

Here are some of the problems. A common rule and becoming more common all the time is that a player playing 2 spots must wager 2x minimum wager. A player playing 3 spots must wager either 3 or 5x minimum wager. So if you are playing anything but red chip level, one you start combining and increasing your 3 spot wagers into a single wager, you start to bump up against different thresholds that are 'attention drawer'. I am not talking table max, I am talking thresholds like $500 that begin to draw more attention.

Example. $25 table. Playing 3 spots you are required to wager either $75 or $125 on each spot (either 3 or 5 x minimum). When the count goes positive you combine the 3 wagers into a single wager which would be either $225 or $375 AND you begin to increase that wager, so you quickly hit thresholds that attract more attention.

A second problem. Casinos have become sensitive in recent years to players moving between single and multiple spots. Not saying you can't do it, but it draws attention. Usually they are looking for the other way, spreading to multiple hands during a positive count rather that spreading from multiple to a single hands, but now a days spreading or reducing hands is an attention drawer.

Third, when playing with other players, they are likely to freak when you reduce two spots. It's at this point that someone usually makes a comical response like "there are other players at the table", meaning that as AP's we don't care what other players do or think. But the fact is, when other players at the table, get upset, it often creates a situation where the pit comes over just to see what is going on. This happens with splitting 10's as well as inserting/reducing extra spots.

Bottom line: draws attention. My whole game from the way I enter, chip inventory or small buy-in, to exiting at first shuffle after showing spread, to exiting without coloring up is designed to get in and get out with minimal attention.

Hi kewlj,

I did simulations, for example,

Minimum bet: $25 x 4 boxes = $100
Max bet: $300 x 2 boxes = $600

Then, bet-spread (per round basis, not per box basis) is 1 to 6.

In real casino situation these days, such betting style (with some cover bets) is difficult or heat catching?

Quote: susumu188

Minimum bet: $25 x 4 boxes = $100
Max bet: $300 x 2 boxes = $600

In real casino situation these days, such betting style (with some cover bets) is difficult or heat catching?

Common rule is if you are betting 1 spot your could bet $25. If you are playing 2 spots, You must bet $50 on each spot. If you are playing 3 spots you must bet either $75 (3x) or $125 (5x) on each spot.

Quote: kewlj

Common rule is if you are betting 1 spot your could bet $25. If you are playing 2 spots, You must bet $50 on each spot. If you are playing 3 spots you must bet either $75 (3x) or $125 (5x) on each spot.

I see, I didn't know that. Thanks for your info.

That betting rule is common in all casinos in Las Vegas Nevada and San Diego California and Vancouver Canada?

Quote: Romes

I hope this is satire?

...

...If you think Hi/Low is "overcomplicated" (I think you mean 'overly complicated'), then to try to make a Jeff Foxworthy quote: "Youuuuuuuuuu might not be an AP."

Just for fun...I've started a contest based on the above quote here. Please give it a try!