advanced red seven strategy indices

#1
I'm new to card counting, so please forgive me if the answer to this question is obvious.

I started reading Snyder's book, Blackbelt in Blackjack, and the explanation on how to read his advanced red seven strategy indices is vague. He states

"These charts are presented in the standard format of blackjack
strategy charts, like the basic strategy charts in Chapter 3. If
there is no entry for a decision, then you should always use basic
strategy. No pair split indices are provided because the gains are
too small to bother with. For all of the player hand totals of 12-16
at the top of the charts, the index numbers are the running counts
at which you should stand. For example, with 12 vs. 4 in the Shoe
Game chart, note that you will stand if your running count is -4 or
higher. This means that in the second half of the shoe, you would
stand on a count of -4, -3, -2, etc., and hit on -5, -6, -7, etc.
If surrender is allowed, surrendering takes precedence over
other decisions. Since no indices are provided for surrendering
16 vs. 9, 10, or A, always follow basic strategy and surrender
these hands.

From what I understand these indices are supposed to provide situations when its appropriate to deviate from basic strategy. Isn't standing on 12 vs 4 basic strategy? Also standing on 15-16 vs 2-6. Can someone please explain to me how to read these. He provides a count for the given situation but does not explain what action to take.

thanks

THE ADVANCED RED SEVEN
1 & 2-DECK STRATEGY
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X A
16 6 2 -2 4
15 6 4 2 4
14 -4 -4 6
13 -2 -2 -2
12 2 0 0-2-2
11 -4 -4 -2
10 -4 -2 2 2
9 0 2
INSURANCE: 0
SURRENDER
15 2 0 0
14 2
BOLD = 1 & 2-Deck Light = 1-Deck Only
2 3 ALL SHOE GAMES 4 5 6 7 8 9 X A
16 4 -4
15 4 4
14
13
12 4 0 -4
11 -4
10 4 4
9 -4 4
INSURANCE: 4
SURRENDER
15 0 -4 0
14 4
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#2
spopov said:
I'm new to card counting, so please forgive me if the answer to this question is obvious.
Welcome!

spopov said:
From what I understand these indices are supposed to provide situations when its appropriate to deviate from basic strategy. Isn't standing on 12 vs 4 basic strategy?
Yes, standing on 12v4 is indeed the correct BS play. And when your advantage is near 0, it is correct to stand on 12v4. If the index for 12v4 is -3, for example, then when the count is less than -3, there are enough low cards to warrant hitting that 12v4 instead of standing (party because you're slightly less inclined to bust).

Just try to think about what it means when the count is high or low - basically that there are either more low cards, or more high cards, left.

Alternatively, a 12v6 would need a lot more low cards remaining, and hence the index for 12v6 might be at -7 or something, and then if the count were less than -7, you'd hit that 12v6. The reason is that when the dealer shows a 6 she has a high chance of busting, and you really don't want to risk busting yourself unless you really aren't inclined to bust.

So to answer your specific question, an index would mean stand if the count is at least that index.

I'll let you figure out what the double down indices mean :)

Hope this clarifies things.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#4
assume_R said:
Welcome!



Yes, standing on 12v4 is indeed the correct BS play. And when your advantage is near 0, it is correct to stand on 12v4. If the index for 12v4 is -3, for example, then when the count is less than -3, there are enough low cards to warrant hitting that 12v4 instead of standing (party because you're slightly less inclined to bust).

Just try to think about what it means when the count is high or low - basically that there are either more low cards, or more high cards, left.

Alternatively, a 12v6 would need a lot more low cards remaining, and hence the index for 12v6 might be at -7 or something, and then if the count were less than -7, you'd hit that 12v6. The reason is that when the dealer shows a 6 she has a high chance of busting, and you really don't want to risk busting yourself unless you really aren't inclined to bust.

So to answer your specific question, an index would mean stand if the count is at least that index.

I'll let you figure out what the double down indices mean :)

Hope this clarifies things.
Where is the most reliable source for indexes? I want to develop several more indexes for KO by TC conversion, especially negative indexes.
 
Last edited:
#5
aslan said:
Where is the most reliable source for indexes? I want to develop several more indexes for KO by TC conversion, especially negative indexes.
You can generate all of them in Casino Verité Blackjack. In fact, i have just done it!

Blace
 
#7
aslan said:
After reading Snyder, I may change to red seven. What do you think?
It depends. There are some questions to ask:
Which system are you using at the moment?
Which are the conditions of play do you face the most?
How many hours do you play in a session?
Do you feel tired at the end of the session with the count you are using at the moment?, etc

Blace
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#8
blace said:
It depends. There are some questions to ask:
Which system are you using at the moment?
Which are the conditions of play do you face the most?
How many hours do you play in a session?
Do you feel tired at the end of the session with the count you are using at the moment?, etc

Blace
Sorry, I am using KO, which Snyder says is good but not as good a performer as his red seven. KO is easy, but not much different than red seven in application. I play mostly 6 deck and 2 deck, but will be playing more 8 deck when Charles Town gets fully opened. KO is not tiring.
 
#9
aslan said:
Sorry, I am using KO, which Snyder says is good but not as good a performer as his red seven. KO is easy, but not much different than red seven in application. I play mostly 6 deck and 2 deck, but will be playing more 8 deck when Charles Town gets fully opened. KO is not tiring.
Red7 has almost the same performance in 6 decks and very slightly better in 2 decks (depending on other game conditions) as you can see here
I would stick with KO preferred because I think it's not worth it the change.

Blace

PS: Anyway, if you are serious about BJ I would recommend you to switch to a balanced count.
 

riggler

Active Member
#10
blace said:
Red7 has almost the same performance in 6 decks and very slightly better in 2 decks (depending on other game conditions) as you can see here
I would stick with KO preferred because I think it's not worth it the change.

Blace

PS: Anyway, if you are serious about BJ I would recommend you to switch to a balanced count.
I'm a newbie. I use Red 7. In VERY short term it's been good to me. But I can also tell by extensive web research here that balanced counts are favored for those who are "serious" about BJ.

Is the reason is that it gives you more advantage plays?

For me it seems these advantage plays are so few and offer such a low advantage that for a player that doesn't have the opporunity to get that many hands in a year it may not be worth it to convert?

Thoughts?
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#11
aslan said:
Where is the most reliable source for indexes? I want to develop several more indexes for KO by TC conversion, especially negative indexes.
The most reliable source would be to generate your own using CVdata and the specific rules / conditions you play with. I have never used published indices, since although indices might not change too much, they can depend on many things. I developed some TKO indices a while back for a member of this site FinnDog, because there were no published ones, and cvdata can handle unbalanced TC indices.

PM me if you want some cvdata help.

Just to correct blace slightly, cvdata generates the indices using simulations (cvindex is what qfit calls that algorithm) and cvblackjack is practice software :)
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#13
riggler said:
I'm a newbie. I use Red 7. In VERY short term it's been good to me. But I can also tell by extensive web research here that balanced counts are favored for those who are "serious" about BJ.

Is the reason is that it gives you more advantage plays?

For me it seems these advantage plays are so few and offer such a low advantage that for a player that doesn't have the opporunity to get that many hands in a year it may not be worth it to convert?

Thoughts?
True Counting
So the running count (RC) tells you that for the rest of the shoe, on average how many more high cards than low cards there are. When you divide by the number of decks left (converting the RC to a true count, TC), you're checking how many more high cards than low cards there are per deck. So just because there are 20 more high cards left in the shoe, is it the same if those 20 cards are spread out over 6 decks or 2 decks? The answer is no, which is why people prefer TC'ing.

Balanced Counts:
Well, some counts can better identify advantageous situations. But mostly, people use balanced because it's easy to divide by the # of decks left, and see if you're >0.

Unbalanced Counts:
An unbalanced count means that when you go through an entire deck, the final RC isn't 0. I'll use Red 7 as an example. After you go through each deck in a 6 deck shoe, you know what the expected count is. So after 1 deck in, it should be Initial Running Count (IRC) + 2. After 2 decks in, it should be IRC + 4. After 3 decks, it should be IRC + 6, ad infinitum. So for 6 decks, you set the IRC at -12, and at the very end of the entire shoe it would be +0. However, when it starts climbing to +0 before the end of the shoe, you essentially are above the expected count, and you know good cards are coming!

I hope that helps you understand. Remember, TC vs RC is not the same as Balanced vs Unbalanced.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#14
assume_R said:
The most reliable source would be to generate your own using CVdata and the specific rules / conditions you play with. I have never used published indices, since although indices might not change too much, they can depend on many things. I developed some TKO indices a while back for a member of this site FinnDog, because there were no published ones, and cvdata can handle unbalanced TC indices.

PM me if you want some cvdata help.

Just to correct blace slightly, cvdata generates the indices using simulations (cvindex is what qfit calls that algorithm) and cvblackjack is practice software :)
I have cvdata; just need to find some time to put it to good use. Always on the go or busy with something else seems to be the story of my life, although the number of posts I make here might make you think otherwise. :laugh:
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#16
assume_R said:
True Counting
So the running count (RC) tells you that for the rest of the shoe, on average how many more high cards than low cards there are. When you divide by the number of decks left (converting the RC to a true count, TC), you're checking how many more high cards than low cards there are per deck. So just because there are 20 more high cards left in the shoe, is it the same if those 20 cards are spread out over 6 decks or 2 decks? The answer is no, which is why people prefer TC'ing.

Balanced Counts:
Well, some counts can better identify advantageous situations. But mostly, people use balanced because it's easy to divide by the # of decks left, and see if you're >0.

Unbalanced Counts:
An unbalanced count means that when you go through an entire deck, the final RC isn't 0. I'll use Red 7 as an example. After you go through each deck in a 6 deck shoe, you know what the expected count is. So after 1 deck in, it should be Initial Running Count (IRC) + 2. After 2 decks in, it should be IRC + 4. After 3 decks, it should be IRC + 6, ad infinitum. So for 6 decks, you set the IRC at -12, and at the very end of the entire shoe it would be +0. However, when it starts climbing to +0 before the end of the shoe, you essentially are above the expected count, and you know good cards are coming!

I hope that helps you understand. Remember, TC vs RC is not the same as Balanced vs Unbalanced.
Is there a simple way to get from RC to TC without a lot of mental gymnastics? (also, relates to my previous smart remark :grin::whip:)
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#17
aslan said:
Is there a simple way to get from RC to TC without a lot of mental gymnastics? (also, relates to my previous smart remark :grin::whip:)
Well, for Red 7, start at IRC = Decks * -2. Divide by decks left. On average it should be -2.

For example, for a 6 deck shoe, IRC = -12. With 5 decks remaining, expected RC = -10, expected TC = -2. With 4 decks remaining, expected RC = -8, expected TC = -2.

So anytime TC > -2, is like a HiLo TC > 0.
A red 7 TC = +1 is like a HiLo TC of +3.

If you aren't comfortable with dividing, you can maybe memorize the TC for various RC's throughout the shoe, such as the The Color of Blackjack, but just get used to dividing I'd say :)
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#18
assume_R said:
Well, for Red 7, start at IRC = Decks * -2. Divide by decks left. On average it should be -2.

For example, for a 6 deck shoe, IRC = -12. With 5 decks remaining, expected RC = -10, expected TC = -2. With 4 decks remaining, expected RC = -8, expected TC = -2.

So anytime TC > -2, is like a HiLo TC > 0.
A red 7 TC = +1 is like a HiLo TC of +3.

If you aren't comfortable with dividing, you can maybe memorize the TC for various RC's throughout the shoe, such as the The Color of Blackjack, but just get used to dividing I'd say :)
So do you see any gain in this over simply using a balanced count?
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#19
aslan said:
So do you see any gain in this over simply using a balanced count?
Nope, I don't, which is why I use Zen for BJ :)

In pitch games, a case can be made that the inaccuracies in using the RC is trumped by the errors derived from the difficulty in deck estimation, and hence a good Unbalanced count may be appropriate.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#20
assume_R said:
Nope, I don't, which is why I use Zen for BJ :)

In pitch games, a case can be made that the inaccuracies in using the RC is trumped by the errors derived from the difficulty in deck estimation, and hence a good Unbalanced count may be appropriate.
I have always returned to this decision point ever since I began counting--continue KO, learn Hi-Lo and deck estimation, or go all in and learn Zen. :laugh: So here I am again.
 
Top