Systems that don't use a true count?

Hello,

Out of curiosity, I've been thinking if there was a viable way to accurately factor the count per deck into the running count. I've read that there are some unbalanced systems that do not need a true count. What systems don't use a true count and how do they substitute it?

Hello Acender.

There are in fact unbalanced counts that do not require a true count conversion. I honestly don't know 100% about these systems because I have never used them. I suppose my first question would be why you'd be looking to avoid the conversion? Do you find it too difficult or tasking? I've used Hi/Low for over a decade now and other than a VERY short time frame at the beginning I've never really had to give it much thought. Like most other things it comes down to how much effort you put in while training. If you train with a lot of distractions, and train frequently, then when you head to the casino counting, chatting, or converting the true count are just like breathing. It becomes muscle memory and you don't have to actively "try hard" to do it.

There's no way around the hard work or tasking priorities. By "saving" effort on the true count you're going to be tasked with an unbalanced count and remembering different indexes/etc. Also, when you try to find help online, you'll find things that are off the beaten path don't have many discussions/answers so often you'll be on your own to figure them out. Trust me when I say whatever ease you feel from not converting the true count you're going to pick up as much or more work with these unbalanced systems. There's no way around the work, it's going to happen one way or another =P. I'd recommend taking the true count conversion as it becomes muscle memory with some training and takes no effort at all at that point.

Quote: Romes

Hello Acender.

There are in fact unbalanced counts that do not require a true count conversion. I honestly don't know 100% about these systems because I have never used them. I suppose my first question would be why you'd be looking to avoid the conversion? Do you find it too difficult or tasking? I've used Hi/Low for over a decade now and other than a VERY short time frame at the beginning I've never really had to give it much thought. Like most other things it comes down to how much effort you put in while training. If you train with a lot of distractions, and train frequently, then when you head to the casino counting, chatting, or converting the true count are just like breathing. It becomes muscle memory and you don't have to actively "try hard" to do it.

There's no way around the hard work or tasking priorities. By "saving" effort on the true count you're going to be tasked with an unbalanced count and remembering different indexes/etc. Also, when you try to find help online, you'll find things that are off the beaten path don't have many discussions/answers so often you'll be on your own to figure them out. Trust me when I say whatever ease you feel from not converting the true count you're going to pick up as much or more work with these unbalanced systems. There's no way around the work, it's going to happen one way or another =P. I'd recommend taking the true count conversion as it becomes muscle memory with some training and takes no effort at all at that point.

Hi Romes,

I should have guessed people would think I'm having trouble keeping up with the true count but, no, I was just curious from a theory I have relating to a side bet. I've been studying Wong Halves diligently and I'm now to the point where I can count down a 52 card deck in under 30 seconds and I've memorized over 60 index plays.

I bought a discard rack for memorizing where the points are when estimating the count. When I practice I leave music or TV shows running and will have conversations on the phone. When I play now I can keep a conversation going with the dealer without losing count.

I plan on posting a progress thread once I pass some more milestones so keep an eye out!

Finding useful information on card counting is indeed quite perilous. I was starting to give up hope before I read your "A to Z" article and then "Professional Blackjack". I've watched clips of self proclaimed card counters saying things like "play variations are bullshit".

Now as for finding a way around the true count, I'm working on a count for a side bet and it occurred to me that if I could find a way to include the true count in it that it would streamline it a lot more. This isn't a project I'm too serious about but more just to satisfy curiosity. :)

Quote: Acender

...I plan on posting a progress thread once I pass some more milestones so keep an eye out!...

Sounds like you're well on your way and I'm sure people would enjoy hearing about a progress thread... once you've made some progress ;-).

Quote: Acender

Now as for finding a way around the true count, I'm working on a count for a side bet and it occurred to me that if I could find a way to include the true count in it that it would streamline it a lot more. This isn't a project I'm too serious about but more just to satisfy curiosity. :)

I've attacked a bunch of side bets. If you want to discuss a bit further, feel free to PM me and we can talk a bit more about specifics.

Quote: Acender

I've read that there are some unbalanced systems that do not need a true count. What systems don't use a true count and how do they substitute it?

Knock Out is an unbalanced count that does not require a true-count conversion.

Depending on the number of decks in the shoe, the count is started at the Initial Running Count (IRC), and decisions are made according to the running count only.

Once the Key Count is reached, the player has the advantage.

For example, a six-deck shoe has an IRC of -20 and a Key Count of -4.

Two decks has an IRC of -4 and a Key Count of +1.

KO vs Hi/Lo Comparison

Thanks! Interesting stuff on that article.

Is the software for generating results available online or are they parameters available for designing an app like that?

Quote: Acender

Thanks! Interesting stuff on that article.

Is the software for generating results available online or are they parameters available for designing an app like that?

Try CVData

On the same site as the Hi/Lo versus KO Simulation, if you navigate to the left where there are several black buttons and click on "Blackjack" then "Card Counting Strategies", you will find a list of the most popular counts. The rightmost column defines their type. Those counts that have a "U" are unbalanced.

While I have no intention of giving up my Wong Halves I do find the K-O system intriguing and bought a copy of the book.

Are all unbalanced systems designed to not use a true count?

Thanks for all the replies so far~

Quote: Acender

Are all unbalanced systems designed to not use a true count?

Yes, as it's part of the nature of an unbalanced count. Note though that as far as K-O is concerned, there is an enhancement that can be made whereby you true count K-O. The count does not become balanced, but it takes into account the number of decks in play to give greater accuracy. There is a book by the name of "The Color of Blackjack" by Daniel Dravot which explains the method.

FWIW, I've been using REKO (Ridiculously Easy Knock-Out) for about the last 12 years or so. It's a simplified version of KO. I used Hi-Opt I before that, and haven't noticed any difference in performance (probably due to error rate with Hi-Opt). I play small stakes and generally come out ahead. I'm a recreational/vacation gambler though, so I'm sure variance plays a big role. To me the biggest advantage is REKO only uses a single index value. You obviously lose some performance, but IIRC it performs at 90+% of any other level 1 count. Easy enough to use at a very low error rate, and effective enough to win.

I'm not sure how well it would work in your situation. The betting correlation is high, but as I recall it doesn't do as well for playing performance or insurance correlation. Best used for shoe games. If you happen to use a very popular BJ trainer (not sure of rules on mentioning product names) it has REKO as a strategy option built in.

I guess that's the big trade off is smoothing and easier to track betting correlations but at the cost of index plays. The ultimate deciding factor would be whatever systems yields the most money per ease of use.

Again, I feel quite at home with Wong Halves and I really like index plays but the concept of a streamlined unbalanced system I find interesting. If I get lazy and decide to use an easier system I guess I could settle for KO or REKO.

Quote: Acender

I guess that's the big trade off is smoothing and easier to track betting correlations but at the cost of index plays. The ultimate deciding factor would be whatever systems yields the most money per ease of use.

Actually, for me it has little to do with yielding the most money. I'm a recreational gambler. I like to have fun at the tables, but hate the idea of giving away money on constant negative expectations. I think I've found a good balance between entertainment and marginal AP play. Learning and becoming proficient at a more advanced system seems too much like a job (see earlier post by Romes on this thread). I already have one of those. If I ever decide to "go pro" (highly unlikely) I certainly won't be doing it with REKO.

Quote: Rio481

Actually, for me it has little to do with yielding the most money. I'm a recreational gambler. I like to have fun at the tables, but hate the idea of giving away money on constant negative expectations. I think I've found a good balance between entertainment and marginal AP play. Learning and becoming proficient at a more advanced system seems too much like a job (see earlier post by Romes on this thread). I already have one of those. If I ever decide to "go pro" (highly unlikely) I certainly won't be doing it with REKO.

Good post.

I personally consider myself a casual player but with the aspiration of maybe going pro one day.

Playing the game itself is entertaining to me... It makes me laughing watching the drunk and superstitious players try to predict weather patterns in the shoe. A few people will awe when I double down on an Ace or split tens on a high count.

Discovering AP has lead to one of my new favorite hobbies!