Introducing the NALT Count
August 12th, 2022 at 4:42:45 PM
permalink
Below are the tag values for a level-2, non-Ace reckoned system incorporating a balanced, level-1 Ace side count which outperforms all single parameter, Ace reckoned systems.
Inspiration
If you look at the tag values for RPC/FELT and Zen side-by-side, they are almost the same.
The only differing values are the A and the 3.
In RPC/FELT, these are valued at -2 and +2 respectively.
In Zen, they are -1 and +1.
The NALT Count
So, early in my card counting adventures, I got the idea to simply omit the 3 and the A from the main count! (Based on EOR values, it would seem more logical to remove the 2/A, but removing the 3/A works better for our betting side count.)
In the spirit of the FELT count, I hereby call this the No Ace Level Two (NALT) count:
A 234567 89 X
0 102221 00 -2
By omitting the 3 completely, this system certainly sacrifices a bit of playing precision for the ease of:
- not having to do quarter-deck Ace density estimation, and
- not having to double-count cards in both a main count and a side count, and
- having the side count be entirely level-1.
However, even with the 3 omitted, this count maintains 96.70% of the accuracy (in playing and insurance decisions) of Hi Opt II.
Betting Side Count
Most of the inaccuracy introduced is seen in the BC, which drops to 0.882; this is drastically improved with the use of a betting side count:
A 3
-1 1
If you add this side count to the main count, you get the tag values of Zen.
If you double this side count before adding it to the main count, you get the tag values of RPC/FELT.
Putting It All Together
So... we use our non-Ace reckoned count for playing and insurance decisions. For betting decisions, we temporarily add the doubled side count (to achieve the same BC as RPC/FELT).
With this simple system, we can achieve: 0.986 BC, 0.647 PE, 0.878 IC.
Given that your main count and side count are both balanced, your IRC and your pivot for both counts are always zero. This also makes these counts natural for backcounting and wonging in/out of shoes.
Required Knowledge
Deck estimation and true count conversion (i.e., simple division) are required for this count.
In addition, tracking a balanced, level-1 side count is required. I recommend attaching a letter to the running count. (3s increment the letter, e.g., Y > Z > nil > A. Aces decrement the letter, e.g., A > nil > Z > Y.) All that is left is to memorize the number that each letter corresponds to (e.g., D is 4, Z is -1, W is -4, etc.).
Happy counting!
Inspiration
If you look at the tag values for RPC/FELT and Zen side-by-side, they are almost the same.
The only differing values are the A and the 3.
In RPC/FELT, these are valued at -2 and +2 respectively.
In Zen, they are -1 and +1.
The NALT Count
So, early in my card counting adventures, I got the idea to simply omit the 3 and the A from the main count! (Based on EOR values, it would seem more logical to remove the 2/A, but removing the 3/A works better for our betting side count.)
In the spirit of the FELT count, I hereby call this the No Ace Level Two (NALT) count:
A 234567 89 X
0 102221 00 -2
By omitting the 3 completely, this system certainly sacrifices a bit of playing precision for the ease of:
- not having to do quarter-deck Ace density estimation, and
- not having to double-count cards in both a main count and a side count, and
- having the side count be entirely level-1.
However, even with the 3 omitted, this count maintains 96.70% of the accuracy (in playing and insurance decisions) of Hi Opt II.
Betting Side Count
Most of the inaccuracy introduced is seen in the BC, which drops to 0.882; this is drastically improved with the use of a betting side count:
A 3
-1 1
If you add this side count to the main count, you get the tag values of Zen.
If you double this side count before adding it to the main count, you get the tag values of RPC/FELT.
Putting It All Together
So... we use our non-Ace reckoned count for playing and insurance decisions. For betting decisions, we temporarily add the doubled side count (to achieve the same BC as RPC/FELT).
With this simple system, we can achieve: 0.986 BC, 0.647 PE, 0.878 IC.
Given that your main count and side count are both balanced, your IRC and your pivot for both counts are always zero. This also makes these counts natural for backcounting and wonging in/out of shoes.
Required Knowledge
Deck estimation and true count conversion (i.e., simple division) are required for this count.
In addition, tracking a balanced, level-1 side count is required. I recommend attaching a letter to the running count. (3s increment the letter, e.g., Y > Z > nil > A. Aces decrement the letter, e.g., A > nil > Z > Y.) All that is left is to memorize the number that each letter corresponds to (e.g., D is 4, Z is -1, W is -4, etc.).
Happy counting!
September 15th, 2022 at 4:59:44 PM
permalink
Hi, tsmosher, and welcome to the forums! You've created an excellent amount of content in your first post, showing that you do your own homework/research and have an itch to find the best way to beat the system... As an AP of 15+ years turning pro 3+ years back, I believe this is the kindling that later smolders in to the fire of professional AP, so off to a great start (if that is a thought on your mind) =).
That being said, let me congratulate and perhaps disappoint you all in the same post =P. If you reference back far enough in these forums or check other forums (blackjacktheforum for one good example) you'll see people have for decades had many debates over counting systems. If you go to the other forum and mention you use Hi/Low they'll shame you for not getting literal extra pennies per hour they can show you from the simulations with CVCX and a more complex counting system.
Without getting in to all of that, my point is, the counting system that someone makes the least amount of mistakes with is the best counting system for that person. My only caveat is that it must be a "real" counting system such as REKO, Hi-OPT, Hi/Low, Wong Halves, etc, etc, and no short cut counting systems like A-5, etc.
Many people stress and strain over different systems, but to be honest this has been a solved problem for decades now. You are beyond better off (EV wise too, let alone sanity) to simply use the system you make the least amount of mistakes with and to put your efforts towards figuring out other AP moves. Imagine if you took all the time you've put in to this counting system and put that towards learning hole carding, or how to take advantage of certain promotions / slot clubs.... etc? At the end of the day if all of the "major" counting systems are within pennies per hour of each other, it can be a fun learning exercise to play with them and figure new ones out (I did the same thing right when I first got in to counting 15+ years ago)... but take my advise it is bit of a waste of your own time and effort given the much bigger and better plays out there and that counting systems are so solved.
Why take the time (even though I did the same thing) coming up with a new counting system that + or - will be within pennies per hour of the other systems? Do you know how much mistakes cost with these more complicated systems? If you make 1 or 2 mistakes per hour with a more complicated system then you've lost MORE than just the pennies of EV you pick up from using said system... meaning your "better system" ends up costing you money due to it's complexity.
The reason I recommend the Hi/Low to every single person that asks me what system I recommend is because:
1) It works. The BC (betting correlation) is strong, meaning you're getting the money out at the right time... imo the most important.
2) It's simple. No side counts. No unbalanced... just simple +1 and -1. Fewer mistakes means more EV/AV.
3) It's popular. One of the most UNDER-looked things, imo, is that there is a TREMENDOUS amount of material and other people to help answer questions. Go back through the blackjack section of this site and see how many other counting systems post and get answers. They'll post and have no responses, or maybe 1 or 2 responses, because very few people use other systems. Whereas with Hi/Low you can google endless pages of information and find MANY other intelligent and successful counters that have employed the system to also chime in with their advice.
Hopefully I haven't ranted too long, but just wanted to give you some advice as someone that's traveled down the road you're going down. You've got the passion, just gotta point yourself in the right directions now =).
That being said, let me congratulate and perhaps disappoint you all in the same post =P. If you reference back far enough in these forums or check other forums (blackjacktheforum for one good example) you'll see people have for decades had many debates over counting systems. If you go to the other forum and mention you use Hi/Low they'll shame you for not getting literal extra pennies per hour they can show you from the simulations with CVCX and a more complex counting system.
Without getting in to all of that, my point is, the counting system that someone makes the least amount of mistakes with is the best counting system for that person. My only caveat is that it must be a "real" counting system such as REKO, Hi-OPT, Hi/Low, Wong Halves, etc, etc, and no short cut counting systems like A-5, etc.
Many people stress and strain over different systems, but to be honest this has been a solved problem for decades now. You are beyond better off (EV wise too, let alone sanity) to simply use the system you make the least amount of mistakes with and to put your efforts towards figuring out other AP moves. Imagine if you took all the time you've put in to this counting system and put that towards learning hole carding, or how to take advantage of certain promotions / slot clubs.... etc? At the end of the day if all of the "major" counting systems are within pennies per hour of each other, it can be a fun learning exercise to play with them and figure new ones out (I did the same thing right when I first got in to counting 15+ years ago)... but take my advise it is bit of a waste of your own time and effort given the much bigger and better plays out there and that counting systems are so solved.
Why take the time (even though I did the same thing) coming up with a new counting system that + or - will be within pennies per hour of the other systems? Do you know how much mistakes cost with these more complicated systems? If you make 1 or 2 mistakes per hour with a more complicated system then you've lost MORE than just the pennies of EV you pick up from using said system... meaning your "better system" ends up costing you money due to it's complexity.
The reason I recommend the Hi/Low to every single person that asks me what system I recommend is because:
1) It works. The BC (betting correlation) is strong, meaning you're getting the money out at the right time... imo the most important.
2) It's simple. No side counts. No unbalanced... just simple +1 and -1. Fewer mistakes means more EV/AV.
3) It's popular. One of the most UNDER-looked things, imo, is that there is a TREMENDOUS amount of material and other people to help answer questions. Go back through the blackjack section of this site and see how many other counting systems post and get answers. They'll post and have no responses, or maybe 1 or 2 responses, because very few people use other systems. Whereas with Hi/Low you can google endless pages of information and find MANY other intelligent and successful counters that have employed the system to also chime in with their advice.
Hopefully I haven't ranted too long, but just wanted to give you some advice as someone that's traveled down the road you're going down. You've got the passion, just gotta point yourself in the right directions now =).
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
September 16th, 2022 at 1:00:51 PM
permalink
Hey,
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said.
I merely felt compelled to post this system somewhere because I'd never seen these particular primary/secondary tag values documented elsewhere.
NALT (meant to also sarcastically stand for "Not Another Level Two" count by the way) quite simply represents the most difficult counting system that I would personally be willing to learn and execute.
The tag values are simple enough that the entire system can really be counted as a "level 1.5" system; with 2s and 7s counted at +0.5, all other primary/secondary tag values are either +1 or -1. (If this is too much, you could even use a suit/color-aware tag value for both the 2 and the 7 - like Red7 or KISS3 - to keep every single tag value at +1 or -1.)
I personally think a more practical/accessible system (that would perform almost identically) would be Hi-Lo with a side count of 7s (i.e., CAC-71). Or Uston +/- with a side count of 2s.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have developed a more advanced count (using a balanced level 3 primary count and a balanced level 2 secondary count) which is infinitesimally more profitable than NALT. I simply do not feel that the added effort needed to accurately learn and execute such a count is worth the improvement of pennies per hour in EV over simpler systems.
However, I also recognize that it is not my place to tell other people what level of effort is worthwhile for them to achieve their maximal profits at the table. Plenty of counters are happy and comfortable counting Hi-Opt 2 with an ace side count in a shoe game (and doing quarter-deck Ace density estimation to boot).
If an inexperienced card counter wanted advice on which card counting system to learn, I think I would personally recommend KO.
Firstly: because it is the strongest level 1 system possible. But more importantly: because it offers a straightforward means of incremental progression should an aspiring card counter wish to make his/her system more profitable as time goes on. (e.g., KO Rookie > REKO > KO Preferred > Enhanced REKO2 > REKO-F > COB-style TKO > TKO > CAC-71).
Happy counting!
Tim.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said.
I merely felt compelled to post this system somewhere because I'd never seen these particular primary/secondary tag values documented elsewhere.
NALT (meant to also sarcastically stand for "Not Another Level Two" count by the way) quite simply represents the most difficult counting system that I would personally be willing to learn and execute.
The tag values are simple enough that the entire system can really be counted as a "level 1.5" system; with 2s and 7s counted at +0.5, all other primary/secondary tag values are either +1 or -1. (If this is too much, you could even use a suit/color-aware tag value for both the 2 and the 7 - like Red7 or KISS3 - to keep every single tag value at +1 or -1.)
I personally think a more practical/accessible system (that would perform almost identically) would be Hi-Lo with a side count of 7s (i.e., CAC-71). Or Uston +/- with a side count of 2s.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have developed a more advanced count (using a balanced level 3 primary count and a balanced level 2 secondary count) which is infinitesimally more profitable than NALT. I simply do not feel that the added effort needed to accurately learn and execute such a count is worth the improvement of pennies per hour in EV over simpler systems.
However, I also recognize that it is not my place to tell other people what level of effort is worthwhile for them to achieve their maximal profits at the table. Plenty of counters are happy and comfortable counting Hi-Opt 2 with an ace side count in a shoe game (and doing quarter-deck Ace density estimation to boot).
If an inexperienced card counter wanted advice on which card counting system to learn, I think I would personally recommend KO.
Firstly: because it is the strongest level 1 system possible. But more importantly: because it offers a straightforward means of incremental progression should an aspiring card counter wish to make his/her system more profitable as time goes on. (e.g., KO Rookie > REKO > KO Preferred > Enhanced REKO2 > REKO-F > COB-style TKO > TKO > CAC-71).
Happy counting!
Tim.
