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
Everyone knows the deck is better with excess of 10,A. But take out the 5s? According to Thorpe's book, a sigificant advantage is also worth considering.
Im strictly a single deck straight up player with a complex way according to most. Unlike most, I like to think and read about other ideas.
4. I agree. But SCORE might. I learned the hard way not to put to much stock in BC, PE. .
Quote: moses3. If it were me, Id do the 10 count. Then compare the Aces played vs 5s played. if more Aces than 5s remain your position is stonger. If more 5s than Aces remain then your position is weaker.
Everyone knows the deck is better with excess of 10,A. But take out the 5s? According to Thorpe's book, a sigificant advantage is also worth considering.
Im strictly a single deck straight up player with a complex way according to most. Unlike most, I like to think and read about other ideas.
4. I agree. But SCORE might. I learned the hard way not to put to much stock in BC, PE. .
Your comments are elucidating, but IF YOU HAVE TO judge a system's effectiveness by BC, PE and IC alone (such was the case before the concept of "SCORE" was created),
1. WHERE DO YOU WANT TO DRAW THE LINE TO SEPARATE EFFECTVE SYSTEMS FROM WEAK SYSTEMS?
2. Or, Without "SCORE", NO LINE AT ALL?
But I use a count below par that gives me more options. SCORE was the highest by about 15%.
2. Im all for simple. As long as it is effective.
Quote: moses1. My barometer was Felt. BC .985. PE .555 IC 780. I have a count that includes a tag to all cards. .976 BC.. 550 PE. 800 IC
But I use a count below par that gives me more options. SCORE was the highest by about 15%.
2. Im all for simple. As long as it is effective.
VERY ADMIRABLE, you have a system one cut above the rest, including Hi-Lo and most of the LEVEL 1 systems.
Your system's BC+PE+IC = 2.32, while Counting the High or AceMT has 2.22 as its BC+PE+IC sum total, but if an Ace Side Count is included, the BC+PE+IC would be higher at 2.38 even without considering that you could vary your bets more in line with your advantages when you know the exact number of surplus Aces.
The difficulty in Wong Halves (.994 BC) isnt the tag of 1.5 on 5 which makes it a Level 3 count. It's also having to count the 2,7 as .5, and 9 as -.5. So drop the 2 to 0 and up the 7 to 1. Now you only have to count the 5 and 9 as 1/2 point values (.963 BC). And SCORE is better in my game. An example of how BC can be deceiving.
Quote: mosesI side count Aces. It's like brushing ones teeth. Just doesn't feel right if I dont. I know exactly how many have been played and thus how many remain.
The difficulty in Wong Halves (.994 BC) isnt the tag of 1.5 on 5 which makes it a Level 3 count. It's also having to count the 2,7 as .5, and 9 as -.5. So drop the 2 to 0 and up the 7 to 1. Now you only have to count the 5 and 9 as 1/2 point values (.963 BC). And SCORE is better in my game. An example of how BC can be deceiving.
Card counting is a "JOB." IF THE JOB IS TOO HARD FOR THE MONEY, WHY GET INTO IT?
I wonder how many hours a Level 2 or Level 3 users can last in 8-Deck shoes?
I really don't want to make the RUNNING COUNT PLUS-AND-MINUS, UP-AND-DOWN adjustments continuously every other two seconds for three or four hours and see no good betting opportunities at all.
I propose COUNT-THE-HIGH, aka AceMT, because even Hi-Lo is too tiring in 8 decks already. Imagine the day when casinos begin to use 10 decks!
Could be what you've done here.🖒
Counting could be gift. Much like singing or sports. To some it comes naturally. Others really have to work at it.
I doubt I could do a percentage or column count beyond 2 decks.
It comes down to making money first. Then a tradeoff of time.
If the money is worth the time invested. More power to you.
Quote: mosesI like the qoite in Peter Griffins book. Engineers understand complex equations. The best make complex simple again.
Could be what you've done here.🖒
Counting could be gift. Much like singing or sports. To some it comes naturally. Others really have to work at it.
I doubt I could do a percentage or column count beyond 2 decks.
It comes down to making money first. Then a tradeoff of time.
If the money is worth the time invested. More power to you.
A quote of George Bernard Shaw used in AceMT for Blackjack and Spanish 21:
"Some men see things as they are and asked why. Others dream things never were and ask why not."
You mention the success Thorp had with the 10 count in the 60's. But he also had very deep pen back then.
I spun a column count off Thorp's book to combat lack of pen. The problem? I couldnt get enough large bets without sacrificing deck composition. Translation: Working too hard for the money.
So I added -12 RC to my criteria for large bet opportunities. The equated to 50% ten/Aces remaining and 50% other cards. The problem was the deck rich in Aces could also be rich in another column. The results was too often funky hands I couldnt do anything with.
Granted, in single deck the bet spread is very limited. Frequency of a large bet must be given strong consideration as well.
Perhaps this all changes in the shoe game. In short, the increased frequency and amount of bet offset poor deck compositions?
Quote: mosesI read some of your posts. Obviously, this isnt your first run around the track.😉
You mention the success Thorp had with the 10 count in the 60's. But he also had very deep pen back then.
I spun a column count off Thorp's book to combat lack of pen. The problem? I couldnt get enough large bets without sacrificing deck composition. Translation: Working too hard for the money.
So I added -12 RC to my criteria for large bet opportunities. The equated to 50% ten/Aces remaining and 50% other cards. The problem was the deck rich in Aces could also be rich in another column. The results was too often funky hands I couldnt do anything with.
Granted, in single deck the bet spread is very limited. Frequency of a large bet must be given strong consideration as well.
Perhaps this all changes in the shoe game. In short, the increased frequency and amount of bet offset poor deck compositions?
I would VENTURE the following:
1. Nothing wrong in Ten Count’s internal math. It beats Hi-Lo hands down in PE and IC.
2. Ten Count has low BC because it is “Ace-Neutral.” It you add Ace Count to Ten Count, and adjust your bets accordingly, Ten Count may beat Hi-Lo or any others commonly touted methods "HANDS DOWN" IN ALL CATEGORIES.
3. Ten Count’s problem may lie in its method of computing advantage. In early 1960s, Thorp used remaining cards' “ratio” for deciding players’ advantage. (It appears you are still using the “ratio method.”) Later, Thorp or someone else began to use point value of -9 (?) and +4 (?). Both methods are methods only suited for GENIUS or real MENTAL GYMNAST in shoe games.
4. If Ten Count had used the same running-count-to-true-count conversion method as is used for AceMT/Count-the-High (which I described in an earlier post), it may still be the system of choice in one or two-deck blackjack.
4. I doubt it. If it were that easy everyone would do it. Id venture to guess most employ HILo and suffer through the volatility.
Quote: moses3.
4. I doubt it. If it were that easy everyone would do it. Id venture to guess most employ HILo and suffer through the volatility.
To my knowledge, the method pioneered by "COUNTING-THE-HIGH or AceMT" was truly OUTLANDISH AND UN-HEARD OF. It even busts a well-known computer simulation program. So much for that.
NO ONE "WOULD DO IT" -- naturally.
Quote: moses3.
4. I doubt it. If it were that easy everyone would do it. Id venture to guess most employ HILo and suffer through the volatility.
To my knowledge, the method pioneered by "COUNTING-THE-HIGH or AceMT" was truly OUTLANDISH AND UN-HEARD OF. It even busts a well-known computer simulation program. So much for that.
NO ONE "WOULD DO IT" -- naturally.
Quote: MoraineTo my knowledge, the method pioneered by "COUNTING-THE-HIGH or AceMT" was truly OUTLANDISH AND UN-HEARD OF. It even busts a well-known computer simulation program. So much for that.
NO ONE "WOULD DO IT" -- naturally.
What does busting a well known simulation mean? I thought from a prior post of yours it was a technical issue of the sim not knowing how to convert the running count to an effective count. What would you have me conclude from that simulation bust?
Quote: unJonWhat does busting a well known simulation mean? I thought from a prior post of yours it was a technical issue of the sim not knowing how to convert the running count to an effective count. What would you have me conclude from that simulation bust?
Meaning that Count-the-High/AceMT system is so NEW, or "outlandish" as some may insist. Some has tried to use a well-known program to simulate, but failed.
So, it should not be a surprise to anyone when MOSES indicated "no one would do it", SINCE NOT EVEN A WELL-KNOWN SIMULATION PROGRAM WOULD DO IT.
PS -- The Race is not to the swift, the battle not to the strong -- for bet and competition between systems! See your post's footer and Chapter 14, AceMT for Blackjack and Spanish 21.
Quote: unJonWhat does busting a well known simulation mean? I thought from a prior post of yours it was a technical issue of the sim not knowing how to convert the running count to an effective count. What would you have me conclude from that simulation bust?
Anything wrong with the following 24, 2021 10:20:49 POST RESPONSE?
"Meaning that Count-the-High/AceMT system is so NEW, or "outlandish" as some may insist. Some has tried to use a well-known program to simulate, but failed.
So, it should not be a surprise to anyone when MOSES indicated "no one would do it", SINCE NOT EVEN A WELL-KNOWN SIMULATION PROGRAM WOULD DO IT.
PS -- The Race is not to the swift, the battle not to the strong -- for bet and competition between systems! See your post's footer and Chapter 14, AceMT for Blackjack and Spanish 21."
