Complicated Card Counting

On the Wizard's main site, Blackjack appendix 7, the Wiz discusses the effect of card removal from the deck, and shows that each card removed has a different effect on the house edge, the worst for the player being an ace, and the worst for the house being a 5 (worst meaning when a 5 comes out the Player's edge goes up). I'm familiar with Hi-lo and Knock out, and those systems don't take these differences into account. As far as they're concerned, a 5 has the same value as a 2. This makes me wonder if a card counting system has been or could be developed taking the differences into account. I'm not good with the math, but looking at the chart, shouldn't a five have a greater positive value than the other cards? I realize this will probably result in keeping track of halves or fractions... but couldn't there be a way to simplify it somewhat and still shave some of the house edge? And if there's already something out there regarding what I'm suggesting what is it and where can I find it? Thanks everyone!

Are you the Rain Man?

Hah! No, can't say that. I'm good with the basics but the higher math loses me. It was just an idea I saw once I looked at that appendix. The Wiz's got a nice graph that lays it out visually, thus the idea.

Okay, for all you math people out there, here's a suggestion:

2:+2
3:+2
4:+3
5:+4
6:+2
7:+1
8:0
9:-1
10:-2
A:-3

Based on that chart I keep referring to, this would be one count for every .20 of an edge. Only problem is it's not balanced. My head shows it -2 heavy on the small card side... if that makes any sense. Any help?

Alright, last time I'll throw something in before giving people a chance to comment. Make 10 values -2.5. I know that makes this a head spinning count system, but that change makes it balanced. Any thoughts? And what would a decent betting ramp look like? Thanks.

PE is playing efficency and BC is betting correlation:

See-- http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/hundred.htm



Count 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X A PE BC
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 .05 .53
2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 .56 .86
3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 0 .61 .88
4 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 0 .64 .85
5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 .51 .97
6 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 .55 .95
7 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 .59 .92
8 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 0 .63 .89
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 .54 .98
10 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -2 .05 .58
11 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 -1 0 .49 .78
12 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 -1 0 .57 .83
13 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 .51 .94
14 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 .53 .91
15 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 .57 .89
16 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 0 .59 .86
17 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 .47 .89
18 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 .53 .84
19 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 .51 .97
20 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 .54 .96
21 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 .49 .94
22 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 .46 .89
23 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 .4 .96
24 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 -1 -2 .43 .94
25 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 .4 .93
26 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 -1 -2 .38 .88
27 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -2 .45 .98
28 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -2 .41 .97
29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -2 .43 .94
30 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -2 .41 .93
31 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -2 .44 .95
32 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -1 -2 .42 .91
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 1 .61 .72
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 0 .61 .8
35 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 -2 0 .67 .88
36 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 -2 0 .67 .91
37 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2 0 .63 .9
38 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 0 .66 .89
39 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 0 .65 .91
40 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 0 .67 .93
41 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -2 0 .62 .92
42 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -1 .63 .97
43 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2 -1 .58 .95
44 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -1 .61 .94
45 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -1 .62 .98
46 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -2 -1 .57 .97
47 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 -1 -2 -1 .62 .95
48 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 -2 -2 0 .63 .93
49 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -2 .56 .99
50 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 -2 -2 -1 .59 .97
51 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 .55 1
52 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 -2 -2 -1 .61 .96
53 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 -1 -2 -2 .57 .99
54 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -3 .48 .98
55 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 -2 -3 .49 .97
56 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -2 -3 .49 .98
57 1 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 -2 -3 .46 .97
58 1 2 3 3 1 1 0 0 -2 -3 .48 .97
59 1 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 -2 -3 .49 .97
60 0 2 3 3 2 1 0 0 -2 -3 .48 .96
61 0 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 -2 -3 .45 .94
62 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 .57 1
63 1 2 3 3 2 0 0 -1 -2 -2 .53 .98
64 0 2 3 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 .55 .97
65 1 2 3 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 .5 1
66 1 2 3 3 2 1 0 0 -3 0 .66 .92
67 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -3 0 .66 .92
68 2 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 -3 0 .63 .91
69 1 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 -3 0 .63 .9
70 1 2 3 3 2 2 0 -1 -3 0 .68 .93
71 2 2 3 3 2 2 0 -1 -3 0 .67 .94
72 2 2 3 3 3 1 0 -1 -3 0 .66 .94
73 1 2 3 3 3 2 0 -2 -3 0 .67 .93
74 1 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 -3 -1 .65 .95
75 2 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 -3 -1 .64 .96
76 2 2 3 3 3 1 0 0 -3 -1 .63 .96
77 1 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 -3 -2 .61 .97
78 2 2 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3 -2 .62 .99
79 2 2 3 3 3 2 0 0 -3 -3 .56 .99
80 2 3 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3 -3 .57 1
81 1 2 3 4 2 1 0 -1 -3 0 .66 .93
82 2 2 3 4 2 1 0 -2 -3 0 .65 .94
83 2 2 3 4 2 2 0 -2 -3 -1 .64 .97
84 2 2 3 4 3 2 0 -2 -3 -2 .61 .99
85 2 2 3 4 3 2 0 -1 -3 -3 .58 1
86 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 -1 -3 -4 .53 1
87 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 -1 -4 0 .68 .93
88 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 0 -4 -1 .66 .95
89 2 2 4 4 3 2 0 0 -4 -1 .66 .95
90 3 3 4 4 2 2 0 -1 -4 -1 .64 .96
91 2 3 4 4 3 2 0 -1 -4 -1 .66 .96
92 2 2 4 4 3 3 0 -1 -4 -1 .67 .95
93 2 3 4 4 3 3 0 -2 -4 -1 .66 .96
94 3 3 4 4 3 2 0 -2 -4 -1 .65 .97
95 3 3 4 4 3 3 0 -2 -4 -2 .63 .98
96 3 3 4 4 3 3 0 0 -4 -4 .56 .99
97 3 3 4 4 4 2 0 0 -4 -4 .56 .99
98 3 3 4 4 4 3 0 -1 -4 -4 .57 1
99 3 3 4 4 3 3 0 -1 -4 -3 .6 .99
100 3 3 4 4 4 2 0 -1 -4 -3 .6 .99

Adjust the column headings to the left--the format did not copy correctly.

Quote: matilda

Adjust the column headings to the left--the format did not copy correctly.

That's because multiple spaces are reduced to a single space in a web browser.

Here:

Count	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	X	A	PE	BC
1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	-1	.05	.53
2	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	-1	0	.56	.86
3	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	-1	0	.61	.88
4	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	-1	0	.64	.85
5	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	-1	-1	.51	.97
6	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	-1	-1	.55	.95
7	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	-1	-1	0	.59	.92
8	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	-1	-1	0	.63	.89
9	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	-1	-1	-1	.54	.98
10	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	-2	.05	.58
11	0	0	2	2	0	0	0	0	-1	0	.49	.78
12	0	0	1	2	1	0	0	0	-1	0	.57	.83
13	0	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	-1	-1	.51	.94
14	0	0	1	2	1	1	0	0	-1	-1	.53	.91
15	0	1	1	2	1	0	0	-1	-1	0	.57	.89
16	0	0	1	2	1	1	0	-1	-1	0	.59	.86
17	0	0	2	2	1	0	0	0	-1	-1	.47	.89
18	0	0	2	2	1	0	0	-1	-1	0	.53	.84
19	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	-1	-1	-1	.51	.97
20	0	1	1	2	1	1	0	-1	-1	-1	.54	.96
21	0	1	2	2	1	0	0	-1	-1	-1	.49	.94
22	0	0	2	2	2	0	0	-1	-1	-1	.46	.89
23	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	-1	-2	.4	.96
24	0	1	1	2	1	1	0	0	-1	-2	.43	.94
25	0	1	2	2	1	0	0	0	-1	-2	.4	.93
26	0	0	2	2	2	0	0	0	-1	-2	.38	.88
27	1	1	1	2	1	1	0	-1	-1	-2	.45	.98
28	1	1	2	2	1	0	0	-1	-1	-2	.41	.97
29	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	-1	-1	-2	.43	.94
30	0	1	2	2	2	0	0	-1	-1	-2	.41	.93
31	0	1	2	2	1	1	0	-1	-1	-2	.44	.95
32	0	0	2	2	2	1	0	-1	-1	-2	.42	.91
33	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	-2	1	.61	.72
34	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	-2	0	.61	.8
35	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	0	-2	0	.67	.88
36	1	1	2	2	1	1	0	0	-2	0	.67	.91
37	1	1	2	2	2	0	0	0	-2	0	.63	.9
38	0	1	2	2	2	1	0	0	-2	0	.66	.89
39	0	2	2	2	2	1	0	-1	-2	0	.65	.91
40	1	1	2	2	2	1	0	-1	-2	0	.67	.93
41	1	2	2	2	2	0	0	-1	-2	0	.62	.92
42	1	1	2	2	2	1	0	0	-2	-1	.63	.97
43	1	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	-2	-1	.58	.95
44	0	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	-2	-1	.61	.94
45	1	2	2	2	2	1	0	-1	-2	-1	.62	.98
46	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	-1	-2	-1	.57	.97
47	0	2	2	2	2	2	0	-1	-2	-1	.62	.95
48	1	2	2	2	2	1	0	-2	-2	0	.63	.93
49	1	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	-2	-2	.56	.99
50	2	2	2	2	2	1	0	-2	-2	-1	.59	.97
51	2	2	2	2	2	1	0	-1	-2	-2	.55	1
52	1	2	2	2	2	2	0	-2	-2	-1	.61	.96
53	1	2	2	2	2	2	0	-1	-2	-2	.57	.99
54	2	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	-2	-3	.48	.98
55	1	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	-2	-3	.49	.97
56	1	2	2	3	2	1	0	0	-2	-3	.49	.98
57	1	2	3	3	2	0	0	0	-2	-3	.46	.97
58	1	2	3	3	1	1	0	0	-2	-3	.48	.97
59	1	1	3	3	2	1	0	0	-2	-3	.49	.97
60	0	2	3	3	2	1	0	0	-2	-3	.48	.96
61	0	2	3	3	3	0	0	0	-2	-3	.45	.94
62	1	2	2	3	2	1	0	-1	-2	-2	.57	1
63	1	2	3	3	2	0	0	-1	-2	-2	.53	.98
64	0	2	3	3	2	1	0	-1	-2	-2	.55	.97
65	1	2	3	3	2	1	0	-1	-2	-3	.5	1
66	1	2	3	3	2	1	0	0	-3	0	.66	.92
67	2	2	2	3	2	1	0	0	-3	0	.66	.92
68	2	2	3	3	2	0	0	0	-3	0	.63	.91
69	1	2	3	3	3	0	0	0	-3	0	.63	.9
70	1	2	3	3	2	2	0	-1	-3	0	.68	.93
71	2	2	3	3	2	2	0	-1	-3	0	.67	.94
72	2	2	3	3	3	1	0	-1	-3	0	.66	.94
73	1	2	3	3	3	2	0	-2	-3	0	.67	.93
74	1	2	3	3	2	2	0	0	-3	-1	.65	.95
75	2	2	3	3	2	2	0	0	-3	-1	.64	.96
76	2	2	3	3	3	1	0	0	-3	-1	.63	.96
77	1	2	3	3	2	2	0	0	-3	-2	.61	.97
78	2	2	3	3	3	2	0	-1	-3	-2	.62	.99
79	2	2	3	3	3	2	0	0	-3	-3	.56	.99
80	2	3	3	3	3	2	0	-1	-3	-3	.57	1
81	1	2	3	4	2	1	0	-1	-3	0	.66	.93
82	2	2	3	4	2	1	0	-2	-3	0	.65	.94
83	2	2	3	4	2	2	0	-2	-3	-1	.64	.97
84	2	2	3	4	3	2	0	-2	-3	-2	.61	.99
85	2	2	3	4	3	2	0	-1	-3	-3	.58	1
86	2	3	3	4	3	2	0	-1	-3	-4	.53	1
87	2	3	3	4	3	2	0	-1	-4	0	.68	.93
88	2	3	3	4	3	2	0	0	-4	-1	.66	.95
89	2	2	4	4	3	2	0	0	-4	-1	.66	.95
90	3	3	4	4	2	2	0	-1	-4	-1	.64	.96
91	2	3	4	4	3	2	0	-1	-4	-1	.66	.96
92	2	2	4	4	3	3	0	-1	-4	-1	.67	.95
93	2	3	4	4	3	3	0	-2	-4	-1	.66	.96
94	3	3	4	4	3	2	0	-2	-4	-1	.65	.97
95	3	3	4	4	3	3	0	-2	-4	-2	.63	.98
96	3	3	4	4	3	3	0	0	-4	-4	.56	.99
97	3	3	4	4	4	2	0	0	-4	-4	.56	.99
98	3	3	4	4	4	3	0	-1	-4	-4	.57	1
99	3	3	4	4	3	3	0	-1	-4	-3	.6	.99
100	3	3	4	4	4	2	0	-1	-4	-3	.6	.99
Count	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	X	A	PE	BC

Quote:

PE is playing efficency and BC is betting correlation.
See-- http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/hundred.htm

Thanks Mr Bear--that looks much better. How did you do it?

When you reply, there's a link on the bottom right that says Click here for formatting codes.

The instructions for that and all the other formatting commands are in there.

Like it or not, these days card counting is a thing of the past with all the "counter"-measures casinos take to discourage players from getting any real advantage over the house.

Multiple decks; poor-penetration; terrible rules; reduced payouts; restrictions on bet spreads (try jacking up your bet from 1 to 12 units to see what I mean); selective shuffling or the use of continuous shufflers make it an entirely losing proposition. You'd lose your money just as slowly playing perfect Basic Strategy without the added frustration and disappointment.

Plus, when a card counter is in the midst of an increasingly negative count, he is usually betting the table minimum at a time when all of the good cards are coming out. Conversely, as the count is rising, the C.C. is making max. bets into a clump of small cards with no guarantee that the Aces and Faces will appear before the cut-off.

Casinos love this tardy generation of counters. Sorry, guys, you missed the boat.

Gee sevenshooter, thanks for crushing my dreams. Anyway, for all of you that care, my system looks kind of like 85, but it's still different. Oh, and thanks Matilda for that list of systems. Obviously people smarter than me have done a lot more work with this stuff.

So has anyone seen that grid I'm referring to on appendix 7? 85 looks a lot like mine, but still doesn't seem to take the differences into account, because the value of 6's and 7's is too high. Or is there something I'm not seeing? Thanks everyone!