Count the High, Not the Low. Will it Work?
Poll
| No votes (0%) | |||
 | 6 votes (85.71%) | ||
| | 2 votes (28.57%) | ||
| No votes (0%) |
7 members have voted
I have wondered why count both the high and the low (10 cards per suit and 40 cards per deck)? Why not count the high cards only (5 cards per suit and 20 per deck) and ignore the rest, 32 cards per deck in total?
This way a card counter can relax like an ordinary recreational blackjack player in 32/52 or 61.5% of the time instead of being able to relax only in 12/52 or 23% of the time -- a 167% more time to catch a break since (61.5%-23%) / 23% = 1.67 = 167%.
One more thought: Most card counters may know Ed Thorp used the Ten Count and clobbered Reno casinos in early 1960s. With that said, I would venture counting 5 high cards alone may work just fine, since it counts one more high card than Ten Count.
Quote: MoraineIn blackjack, If a deck of 52 cards has one surplus high card (10, J, Q, K, Ace), a non-high card (2 thru 9) must be missing. The probability of that missing non-high card being a low card (2 thru 5) is 5 out of 8, or 62.5%.
I have wondered why count both the high and the low (10 cards per suit and 40 cards per deck)? Why not count the high cards only (5 cards per suit and 20 per deck) and ignore the rest, 32 cards per deck in total?
This way a card counter can relax like an ordinary recreational blackjack player in 32/52 or 61.5% of the time instead of being able to relax only in 12/52 or 23% of the time -- a 167% more time to catch a break since (61.5%-23%) / 23% = 1.67 = 167%.
Simply put: Because that's not how it works. The High-Low count (and similar counts) work the way they do for a reason. If you take a look here at Effect-of-Removal:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/effect-of-removal/
Granted, that's for six decks and you might be talking about a different game, but as you can see, the other card values (2-9) are nowhere near neutral. It just turns out that a player can look at (7-9) and call that close enough to not really have to specifically count those.
Still, a nine has more than 40% of the positive player value of a ten, so if you were going to advocate for anything, it should probably be specifically tracking those, as well.
The eight is the closest thing there is to a completely neutral card and is very slightly player favorable. The second closest thing to a neutral card is a seven, which favors the house somewhat. For this six-decks example on the page, it seems that it favors the House almost exactly as much as a nine favors the player for S17 and less than a nine favors the player for H17.
Anyway, the point is, the high-low count is effectively already designed for ease-of-use. And, if you look at the EV chart, it becomes pretty clear why you wouldn't want to treat a nine the same way you would treat a five.
Think about this a bit more please before you go on thinking you have something new.Quote: MoraineJust searched "Speed Count" on the net. It seems "speed Count" counts the small cards PLUS THE NUMBER OF HANDS PLAYED TO ESTIMATE players' advantage. Interesting, but seems different.
This is an extremely weak method, barely producing a player edge. Any information less than this it certainly not winning.
Quote: HunterhillYou could keep track of how many high cards have been dealt and whether there is an excess or shortage depending on how many decks have been played But I don’t think it would be any easier than using hi lo.
But no longer need to adjust the RUNNING COUNT UP-AND-DOWN though -- a boring but demanding task in the most part of a 6 to 8-deck shoe game.
There used to be "Card Counting Efficiency Calculator" readily available on internet. Too bad, the calculator seems not working as of late. Otherwise, the comparisons between Counting-the-High-Only and Any Other System would be clear.
PS - I know Ed Thorp's Ten Count has pretty good BC+PE+IC in comparison with the numbers of Hi-Lo. Counting the high cards only shouldn't be very far off.
I understand your point regarding cards 7 and 9. But in order to take those two cards into account, I think a "HALF" or some other systems many be needed, which often are harder than Hi-Lo.
The reason for counting the high cards only is to eliminate the need for making constant +1 or -1 adjustment to the running counts -- a chore I like to avoid when playing 6 or 8-deck shoe game.
In shoe games, I often found true count conversions simple enough, like 7/2 = 3.5. Also, one seldom has a real need to make a conversion in the first half of the shoe, since the true counts often hover between negative and slightly positive, say +1 or +2 territory.
In shoe games, I often found true count conversions simple enough, like 7/2 = 3.5. Also, one seldom has a real need to make a conversion in the first half of the shoe, since the true counts often hover between negative and slightly positive, say +1 or +2 territory.
Quote: MoraineI think most of the unbalanced counts still require +/- running count adjustments. They may eliminate the running count to true count conversion though.
In shoe games, I often found true count conversions simple enough, like 7/2 = 3.5. Also, one seldom has a real need to make a conversion in the first half of the shoe, since the true counts often hover between negative and slightly positive, say +1 or +2 territory.
You would need to do a non-simple true count conversion on a high only count. A count of 20 high cards is either good or bad depending on how many decks are left.
Quote: unJonYou would need to do a non-simple true count conversion on a high only count. A count of 20 high cards is either good or bad depending on how many decks are left.
One Simple Method for Converting High Cards Running Count to High Cards True Count:
Say at the end of 5 decks of an 8-deck shoe, you found only 80 high cards have been dealt. But if the high cards had been dealt at EVEN PACE, 100 high cards would have been dealt.
So, HIGH CARDS TRUE COUNT = (5 x 20 - 80) / 3 = 20 / 3 = 6.66, or 6.5 for approximation. (FANTASTIC! 6.5 High Cards Ture Count is BETTER THAN 10 Hi-Lo True Count.)
Quote: MoraineInteresting to know that there are EORs based on 6-deck blackjack. I wonder is there a way to covert the 6-deck EOR into the EOR for a different deck number?
I understand your point regarding cards 7 and 9. But in order to take those two cards into account, I think a "HALF" or some other systems many be needed, which often are harder than Hi-Lo.
The reason for counting the high cards only is to eliminate the need for making constant +1 or -1 adjustment to the running counts -- a chore I like to avoid when playing 6 or 8-deck shoe game.
Trying to reinvent the wheel again... and again....
You can find all Effects of Removal for 1, 2, 6 and 8 decks in Blackjack Attack 3 by Don Schlesinger in Appendix D.
However, since you tried to teach Blackjack to Don (and many other advanced players) on a forum where you ended up barred, I doubt you will listen to anyone trying to help you here...
"making +1 or -1 adjustment to the running count -- a chore I like to avoid" LOL
Maybe you should try Roulette.
Quote: MoraineInteresting to know that there are EORs based on 6-deck blackjack. I wonder is there a way to covert the 6-deck EOR into the EOR for a different deck number?
I understand your point regarding cards 7 and 9. But in order to take those two cards into account, I think a "HALF" or some other systems many be needed, which often are harder than Hi-Lo.
The reason for counting the high cards only is to eliminate the need for making constant +1 or -1 adjustment to the running counts -- a chore I like to avoid when playing 6 or 8-deck shoe game.
I'll just say what you are describing is probably better than nothing if you are playing recreationally.
That aside, I default to what Teliot told you and have nothing really to add to that.
Quote: MoraineI think most of the unbalanced counts still require +/- running count adjustments. They may eliminate the running count to true count conversion though.
In shoe games, I often found true count conversions simple enough, like 7/2 = 3.5. Also, one seldom has a real need to make a conversion in the first half of the shoe, since the true counts often hover between negative and slightly positive, say +1 or +2 territory.
Most people find mental division to be more difficult than adding and subtracting by ones mentally.
Quote: GManTrying to reinvent the wheel again... and again....
You can find all Effects of Removal for 1, 2, 6 and 8 decks in Blackjack Attack 3 by Don Schlesinger in Appendix D.
However, since you tried to teach Blackjack to Don (and many other advanced players) on a forum where you ended up barred, I doubt you will listen to anyone trying to help you here...
"making +1 or -1 adjustment to the running count -- a chore I like to avoid" LOL
Maybe you should try Roulette.
THANK YOU, but would not want to rehash what everyone has said in THAT WHATCAHAMACALLIT FORUM.
Quote: Mission146Most people find mental division to be more difficult than adding and subtracting by ones mentally.
I think division is more difficult too, but as I said one needs to do true count conversion in shoe games only infrequently, while the +1/-1 running count adjustment in Hi-Lo is almost an every-second chore.
Hi-Lo and some other well-known systems may be easy enough for one with LONG-ATTENTION SPAN and EYESIGHT. But there are people SHORT IN ATTENTION SPAN and EYESIGHT (like me) who also like to play blackjack, to win and to have fun too. Counting the high cards only may be the right system, since HIGH CARDS ARE EASY TO SPOT, HARD TO MISS.
A new proposed EASIER card counting system is not "RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL." Its benefit is more like a AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION CAR in the era of STICK-SHIFT CARS.
Quote: MoraineI think division is more difficult too, but as I said one needs to do true count conversion in shoe games only infrequently, while the +1/-1 running count adjustment in Hi-Lo is almost an every-second chore.
Hi-Lo and some other well-known systems may be easy enough for one with LONG-ATTENTION SPAN and EYESIGHT. But there are people SHORT IN ATTENTION SPAN and EYESIGHT (like me) who also like to play blackjack, to win and to have fun too. Counting the high cards only may be the right system, since HIGH CARDS ARE EASY TO SPOT, HARD TO MISS.
A new proposed EASIER card counting system is not "RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL." Its benefit is more like a AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION CAR in the era of STICK-SHIFT CARS.
I return to what you are describing is probably better than doing nothing if you are playing recreationally.
My understanding, from what I have read, is that the, "Eye in the sky," sometimes evaluates what a player is doing (in terms of varying one's bets) based on the Hi-LO count. That being the case, what you are proposing might be at least good from the standpoint of longevity---since your increased bets will often appear to make no sense whatsoever.
Quote: billryanIf a bet makes no sense using the more efficient system, I'm not sure how it makes sense when using a weaker system
Because the weaker system only cares about high cards. So, you can have a certain TC that the weaker system says increase your bet, but H/L would not, for instance, if you knew that a bunch of the non-high cards that were out were not 2-6.
A shoe missing a bunch of eights and nines, for example.
Quote: Mission146I return to what you are describing is probably better than doing nothing if you are playing recreationally.
My understanding, from what I have read, is that the, "Eye in the sky," sometimes evaluates what a player is doing (in terms of varying one's bets) based on the Hi-LO count. That being the case, what you are proposing might be at least good from the standpoint of longevity---since your increased bets will often appear to make no sense whatsoever.
You used one more angle -- Eye in the Sky -- to evaluate systems. Interesting! The camouflage value of an UNTRADITIONAL system, bet or play is hard to quantify. But it's there, may be "immeasurable."
Quote: Mission146Because the weaker system only cares about high cards. So, you can have a certain TC that the weaker system says increase your bet, but H/L would not, for instance, if you knew that a bunch of the non-high cards that were out were not 2-6.
A shoe missing a bunch of eights and nines, for example.
The weaker system will fool you into thinking you have an advantage when you really don't.
Quote: billryanThe weaker system will fool you into thinking you have an advantage when you really don't.
It is probably better than doing nothing if someone is playing recreationally; that’s my endorsement. It’s probably slightly better than just playing basic strategy or optimal strategy based on initial shoe composition.
But, yes, what you said was basically the point I was making in a roundabout way with the surveillance thing. Basically, it’s so weak, that some might not think you’re counting at all.
Quote: Mission146It is probably better than doing nothing if someone is playing recreationally; that’s my endorsement. It’s probably slightly better than just playing basic strategy or optimal strategy based on initial shoe composition.
But, yes, what you said was basically the point I was making in a roundabout way with the surveillance thing. Basically, it’s so weak, that some might not think you’re counting at all.
It seems to be the consensus of the commentators and the respondents to the poll as of 5:55 PM, 5/19/2021, Las Vegas time that the Counting-the-High-Only system is a weak or marginal at best, if not downright outlandish.
Like to have some basic measuring criteria if possible.
1) Is Hi-Lo a weak system or a strong system in your view?
2) Are the Betting Correlation (BC), the Playing Efficiency (PE) and the Insurance Correlation (IC) of two systems the valid criteria for comparing two systems' effectiveness?
3) Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC = 0.97 + 0.51 + 0.76 = 2.24. Within what percentage (can be either + or -) of that 2.24 sum total of Hi-Lo a new system must have in order to be considered a REASONABLY EFFECTIVE COUNTING SYSTEM?
THANKS.
Quote: MoraineIt seems to be the consensus of the commentators and the respondents to the poll as of 5:55 PM, 5/19/2021, Las Vegas time that the Counting-the-High-Only system is a weak or marginal at best, if not downright outlandish.
Like to have some basic measuring criteria if possible.
1) Is Hi-Lo a weak system or a strong system in your view?
2) Are the Betting Correlation (BC), the Playing Efficiency (PE) and the Insurance Correlation (IC) of two systems the valid criteria for comparing two systems' effectiveness?
3) Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC = 0.97 + 0.51 + 0.76 = 2.24. Within what percentage (can be either + or -) of that 2.24 sum total of Hi-Lo a new system must have in order to be considered a REASONABLY EFFECTIVE COUNTING SYSTEM?
THANKS.
This is where I bow out because those questions are above my pay grade and I’d be answering out of class. I am not a card counter and do not specialize in Blackjack in any way, so my knowledge is very limited.
I recognize the proposed counting system as weaker than Hi-Lo and have stated why. I believe my position on this is mathematically valid and people who would know and can better articulate the underlying mathematical reasons have agreed with me, so I leave this for them.
I answer #1 only to the extent that it is a stronger system than you propose and is often touted by actual card counters (professional/expert) as an efficient Level 1 system.
My answer to #2 is, “I would think so.” You seem to advocate for your system’s ease of use, which is fine, and I’ll leave any further and more detailed discussion to those who know more about it than I do. I understand the rudiments of card counting well enough for my purposes—-which are very limited. Specifically, my limited purposes are to be able to discuss it in only the most fundamental way.
With question #3, we enter the realm where I am no longer qualified to offer an opinion without further study, which I lack sufficient interest to do as relates this subject.
Simply put, I’m now out of my element on the subject and have no problem admitting it.
Quote: Moraine
3) Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC = 0.97 + 0.51 + 0.76 = 2.24. Within what percentage (can be either + or -) of that 2.24 sum total of Hi-Lo a new system must have in order to be considered a REASONABLY EFFECTIVE COUNTING SYSTEM?
THANKS.
It is completely wrong to use the sum of BC+PE+IC. Theoretically you can have a BC of 100% and an IC of 100%, but you can never have a PE greater than 76%. These three things are calculated in different areas of math. What is the meaning of the total sum?
Sum totals are listed in Encyclopedia of Blackjack. I think a comparison based on sum total can serve as a rough guide at least.
If you consider sum total comparisons meaningless, please give the % (can be +, - or 0) of each individual efficiency coefficient WITHIN WHICH that you may consider a system - NOT NECESSARILY MY PROPOSED SYSTEM -- reasonably effective.
Quote: MoraineThank you for giving a math lesson in blackjack.
Sum totals are listed in Encyclopedia of Blackjack. I think a comparison based on sum total can serve as a rough guide at least.
If you consider sum total comparisons meaningless, please give the % (can be +, - or 0) of each individual efficiency coefficient WITHIN WHICH that you may consider a system - NOT NECESSARILY MY PROPOSED SYSTEM -- reasonably effective.
I don’t give anybody any lesson but Encyclopedia of Blackjack probably is not a reliable source of reference. I propose to use a new coefficient to evaluate a count system, which I name co-efficiency=BCxPE. This co-efficiency will balance BC and PE to obtain an optimal trade off. The IC should be independently treated because the insurance bet is just a side bet as it will not affect the main game of blackjack by even a little bit. Side bets usually should be guided by additional side counts so that the main game of blackjack is not affected.
"Reinventing the wheel" is an over used term whenever someone suggests anything other than HiLo. Im not so sure the cheese was firm on Mr Griffins cracker when he worked out Effect of Removal. Hi Lo gives the same weight to the 2 and the 5. That is bound to create volatilty. Maybe one should just "tighten their seat belt."
Quote: acesideI don’t give anybody any lesson but Encyclopedia of Blackjack probably is not a reliable source of reference. I propose to use a new coefficient to evaluate a count system, which I name co-efficiency=BCxPE. This co-efficiency will balance BC and PE to obtain an optimal trade off. The IC should be independently treated because the insurance bet is just a side bet as it will not affect the main game of blackjack by even a little bit. Side bets usually should be guided by additional side counts so that the main game of blackjack is not affected.
Conceptually, I cannot figure out what BC x PE may mean. It is beyond my ability to make further comment on that point.
As to your point that IC should be independently treated, the point seems to reflect your earlier point to a certain extent that the sum total of BC+ PE +IC has no meaning.
I proposed again that you may give the %-limit for each individual coefficient, and we may proceed on that basis. PLEASE HELP.
Quote: mosesThis might be okay for a very aggressive player who always takes insurance when called for.
"Reinventing the wheel" is an over used term whenever someone suggests anything other than HiLo. Im not so sure the cheese was firm on Mr Griffins cracker when he worked out Effect of Removal. Hi Lo gives the same weight to the 2 and the 5. That is bound to create volatilty. Maybe one should just "tighten their seat belt."
I know some "AGRRESIVE TEAM PLAYERS" boast this approach:
One do the Easier Hi-Lo Main Count, the other Do the Harder Ten Count Side Count.
HiLo is .970 BC. .511 PE. .760 IC.
Thus your strength comes from IC.
Have you ran a simulation?
Quote: mosesBet Correlation is .867. Playing Efficiency .473. Insurance Correlation is .821.
HiLo is .970 BC. .511 PE. .760 IC.
Thus your strength comes from IC.
Have you ran a simulation?
Many years back, I went to a “Card Counting Efficiency Calculator” freely available to all at certain internet site (can't type in the site name here). I got the numbers for BC, PE and IC for the-High-Only, Hi-Lo and Ten Count. The numbers I got then were as follows:
High-Only System: 0.8906, 0.4949, 0.8433
Hi-Lo: 0.9682, 0.5114, 0.7601
Ten Count: 0.7226, 0.6117, and 1.0000
When I revisited the site the other day, the site seemed to have an “Adobe Flash” problem. It is no longer working !!!
PS -- I have one non-traditional method to boost the IC of the-High-Only to 1.000 to match that of Ed Thorp's Ten Count. But that requires more explanations.
Quote: MoraineYes, -1 point value to 10, J, Q, K and Ace. 0 to all the rest.
PS -- I have one non-traditional method to boost the IC of the-High-Only to 1.000 to match that of Ed Thorp's Ten Count. But that requires more explanations.
Thorp's Ten count is a great 2nd count for insurance decisions.
But as a primary count with an Ace included? A RC 12 (in a 52 card deck) equates to 50% tens/Aces remain and 50% other cards remain. The risk is not knowing the deck composition of the 2-9s. A deck rich in 10,A could also be rich in say 3-7s etc, etc.
I get what you're saying/doing. Thinking outside the box is good.🖒 Hard to say if it's worth it without running a sim.
Quote: mosesThorp's Ten count is a great 2nd count for insurance decisions.
But as a primary count with an Ace included? A RC 12 (in a 52 card deck) equates to 50% tens/Aces remain and 50% other cards remain. The risk is not knowing the deck composition of the 2-9s. A deck rich in 10,A could also be rich in say 3-7s etc, etc.
I get what you're saying/doing. Thinking outside the box is good.🖒 Hard to say if it's worth it without running a sim.
THANKS.
Ace is included in the PRIMARY COUNT.
With an Ace side count, the "High-Only system" will have 100% IC.
Regarding where to draw a line on system effectiveness, does the following make sense?
A. Use Hi-Lo’s BC, PE and IC as the bench-mark numbers.
B. An Effective counting system must meet the following MINIMUM THRESHOLD:
1. Each INDIVIUAL coefficient of a system cannot be LESS THAN ______% the corresponding coefficients of Hi-Lo.
2. The combined BC + PE + IC must be NO LESS THAN _____ % of the combined BC + PE +IC of Hi-Lo.
3. EXCEPT FOR systems published prior to 1980, an Effective System must have at least _____known deviation indices when SURRENDER IS NOT AVAILABLE.
4. EXCEPT FOR systems published prior to 1980, an Effective system must have at least _____known Surrender Indices.
PLEASE GIVE your recommended for the blanks in:
Blank # 1. _______; 3 _________;3_________;4___________
Ive learned it all comes down to SCORE.
Selecting a count or grouping numbers isnt as much about winning as it is what gets in your head when you lose.
Quote: moses
Selecting a count or grouping numbers isnt as much about winning as it is what gets in your head when you lose.
Very True, the original developer RETURNED TO HIS HOME-MADE "Counting-the-High-Only" system AFTER A TERRIBLE LOSS WITH Hi-Lo -- a loss he later said was his LUCKIEST LOSS EVER.
Quote: MoraineThanks to ALL for comments so far. HOPE THERE ARE MORE COMING !!!
Regarding where to draw a line on system effectiveness, does the following make sense?
A. Use Hi-Lo’s BC, PE and IC as the bench-mark numbers.
B. An Effective counting system must meet the following MINIMUM THRESHOLD:
1. Each INDIVIUAL coefficient of a system cannot be LESS THAN ______% the corresponding coefficients of Hi-Lo.
2. The combined BC + PE + IC must be NO LESS THAN _____ % of the combined BC + PE +IC of Hi-Lo.
3. EXCEPT FOR systems published prior to 1980, an Effective System must have at least _____known deviation indices when SURRENDER IS NOT AVAILABLE.
4. EXCEPT FOR systems published prior to 1980, an Effective system must have at least _____known Surrender Indices.
PLEASE GIVE your recommended for the blanks in:
Blank # 1. _______; 3 _________;3_________;4___________
PLEASE PROPOSE A NEW ONE or pick from the following:
Standard A (Easy): 70%, 75%, 6 and 2 for Blanks #1, 2, 3 and 4 Respectively.
REMARK: This standard will allow a few well-known systems, such as Thorp’s Ten Count, to also make the cut. (Ten Count’s PE and IC are much higher than Hi-Lo’s numbers, but its BC is only 74% of Hi-Lo’s BC.)
Standard B: (Moderate): 80%, 85%, 18, 4
REMARK: Counters are familiar with the terms of Illustrious 18 and Fabulous 4, and may expect to have at least that many indices from any systems.
Standard C (Strict): 90%, 95%, 36, 8
REMARK: Hi-Lo has hundreds of deviation indices. (See Stanford Wong’s Professional Blackjack.) With additional indices, a counter can use the lesser known indices for camouflage as well as for winning more when the opportunities arise.
Thus BC and PE are useless. That wipes out most of the old school books. Thorp talked about the removal of the 5. As I recall, he also had an Ace,5 count.
Don S is still around and ready , willing, and able to answer all questions. SCORE will provide a fair comparison with modern technology.
Quote: MorainePLEASE PROPOSE A NEW ONE or pick from the following:
Standard A (Easy): 70%, 75%, 6 and 2 for Blanks #1, 2, 3 and 4 Respectively.
REMARK: This standard will allow a few well-known systems, such as Thorp’s Ten Count, to also make the cut. (Ten Count’s PE and IC are much higher than Hi-Lo’s numbers, but its BC is only 74% of Hi-Lo’s BC.)
Standard B: (Moderate): 80%, 85%, 18, 4
REMARK: Counters are familiar with the terms of Illustrious 18 and Fabulous 4, and may expect to have at least that many indices from any systems.
Standard C (Strict): 90%, 95%, 36, 8
REMARK: Hi-Lo has hundreds of deviation indices. (See Stanford Wong’s Professional Blackjack.) With additional indices, a counter can use the lesser known indices for camouflage as well as for winning more when the opportunities arise.
In addition to the earlier May 21st, 2021, 9:40:11 PM post, I would like to provide the following basic info for evaluating the Counting-the-High’s relative effectiveness.
1. The BC, PE and IC of “Counting-the-High system” are 0.89, 0.49 and 0.84, respectively, while Hi-Lo’s corresponding numbers are 0.97, 0.51 and 0.76, respectively. (See AceMT and Hi-Lo in Encyclopedia of Blackjack, Card Counting System Comparisons, for each system's respective BC, PE and IC, and their sum totals.)
2. Counting-the-High's BC+PE+IC = 2.22 while Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC = 2.24. Counting-the-High thus attains 99.1% of Hi-Lo's number.
3. Counting-the-High has 90 published Deviation Indices for S17 Blackjack as of 2/9/2021.
4. Counting-the-High has 14 published Surrender Indices for S17 Blackjack as of 2/9/2021..
Notes:
• Counting-the-High is identified as AceMT in Encyclopedia of Blackjack.
• Counting-the-High's numbers of published Deviation Indices and Surrender Indices are based upon the info in Chapters 7 and 8 of AceMT for Blackjack and Spanish 21.
Based on your strategy, I wouldnt feel comfortable without know how many 5s have been played. Somewhere during a loss, Id have a "wth just happened moment."
As a percentage player, you could employ a ten count and then compare the number of Aces vs 5's played/remain.
if your strategy where to include the 5 . BC is .809. PE is .413. IC is .679.
CV Data has an Efficiency calculator. That will answer all your BC, PE, IC questions and your various formula concerns.
No one is going to know without running a ton of different sims. Few will do it for themselves. Let alone someone else.
Quote: mosesCV Data at qfit is a tool you might find useful and interesting.
Based on your strategy, I wouldnt feel comfortable without know how many 5s have been played. Somewhere during a loss, Id have a "wth just happened moment."
As a percentage player, you could employ a ten count and then compare the number of Aces vs 5's played/remain.
if your strategy where to include the 5 . BC is .809. PE is .413. IC is .679.
CV Data has an Efficiency calculator. That will answer all your BC, PE, IC questions and your various formula concerns.
No one is going to know without running a ton of different sims. Few will do it for themselves. Let alone someone else.
1. Count-the-High, aka AceMT, is a listed Card Counting system in Encyclopedia of Blackjack (AceMT is the First Entry in the table of "Card Counting System Comparisons".)
2. AceMT's BC, PE and IC are 0.89, 0.49 and 0.84, respectively.
3. Count-the-High ignores all non-high cards (2 thru 9). Do you mean to have an ACE-5 side count? Or, a FIVE side count alone?
4. Don't see Count-the-High OR ANY SYSTEM needs to pick-out a card, DELIBERATELY IGNORED ALREADY, for special treatment. The computations of BC, PE and IC won't change in any event.
5. Some had tried to use CV Data, and ran into problems because, unless modified, the CURRENT CV Data CANNOT handle my way of computing the running count.
