Spanish 21_New Counting System

#1
Hi,

I talked to a player today and he told me about the counting system he is using for Spanish 21, which is below

Card tag:
2:0
3:0
4:+1
5:+1
6:+1
7:0
8:0
9:0
T(JQK):-1
A:0
Side count Ace is required for betting purpose.

I want to know more about the system, like spread, playing index, true count conversion, etc., but he wouldn't tell me more.

As it's used in Spanish 21, it's a balanced count system and easier than Hi-Low system. However, I don't think it's a very powerful system. Is anyone using the system, too? I'd appreciate if anyone could provide me more information about it, thanks.

San
 

NightStalker

Well-Known Member
#2
Looks okay but not great to me..

I'm aware of two other balanced counting systems:
a=-2,2-6=+1,j-k=-1
3-6=+1,j-k,A=-1

Both works good.. Side counting aces is a pain for me..
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#3
Without adjusting for aces, that's only a 0.70 BC, whereas Kat's HiLo system is 0.92 BC.

If you tell me how you adjust the aces, I can tell you the new BC.

That count would probably be okay for making better playing decisions, but would have to be used on conjunction with either another player using a good count for Betting, or with a very good way to side count.

According to my data for Sp21, from a very well respected AP, the 3 and the 6 have almost the same EOR when it comes to betting, and you are ignoring the 3.
 
#4
assume_R said:
Without adjusting for aces, that's only a 0.70 BC, whereas Kat's HiLo system is 0.92 BC.

If you tell me how you adjust the aces, I can tell you the new BC.

That count would probably be okay for making better playing decisions, but would have to be used on conjunction with either another player using a good count for Betting, or with a very good way to side count.

According to my data for Sp21, from a very well respected AP, the 3 and the 6 have almost the same EOR when it comes to betting, and you are ignoring the 3.
Hi,

I know he side counts aces but don't know how he adjusts it. I agree with you, ignoring 3 seems odd to me. I think someone invented it to make counting easier and better playing decision. But as side count aces is required for betting purpose, I'm not sure if it's really easier or better than the Hi-Low system.

San
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#5

The methodology for Side-Counting Aces effectively will depend upon whether the
game is H17 [as on the West Coast] or S17 [as on the East Coast].

The E.O.R. for Aces is radically different for the two games.

Footnote: The (playable) Span21 game at The EXCALIBUR in Las Vegas has been discontinued.
I was there this week. The game is gone. The only playable game in that store is defunct..
It was a deal 5 of 6 deck game with H17 but with the 5,6,7 card 21’s paying 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1.
 

sabre

Well-Known Member
#6
FLASH1296 said:


Footnote: The (playable) Span21 game at The EXCALIBUR in Las Vegas has been discontinued.
I was there this week. The game is gone. The only playable game in that store is defunct..
It was a deal 5 of 6 deck game with H17 but with the 5,6,7 card 21’s paying 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1.
That really sucks. I had a personal record spread of 1-2x100 at that game.
 

BMDD

Well-Known Member
#8
NightStalker said:
I'm aware of two other balanced counting systems:
a=-2,2-6=+1,j-k=-1
3-6=+1,j-k,A=-1

Both works good.. Side counting aces is a pain for me..
Can anyone produce an efficiency comparison for these?

Also where can I find I18 for either of them? Would Kat's numbers work adjusted for the balanced count?
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#9
Adjusting Kat's Indices by +4 yields a very good, (albeit imperfect), results;
not that perfection is called for as you are bet-sizing into a spread of 30 or 40-1

Re: The more important Indices to learn. Kat addresses that in her book.

You will do fine if you ignore those that are very divergent
from ZERO or are for pair splits or soft doubles.
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#11
BMDD said:
Thank you Flash.

Just to be sure, Kat's number's(+4) will suffice for both aforementioned balanced counts?
I'd hesitate to say that. I know that flash uses a certain count in which adding +4 to Kat's indices happen to coincide nicely with the optimal index numbers :)

Yet for the aforementioned counts it isn't so straightforward.

The least important indices are indeed address in Kat's book as such, but thus far nobody has done an extensive study on sorting the most important indices based on importance, in the manner that D.S. did in BJA for blackjack indices, in which he found that after insurance, 16v10 was most important.

Kat's findings result in leaving approximately 28 indices (give or take), but she didn't give any numbers on relative importance, or indeed a mathemetical justification for removing some of them. Perhaps in her software she actually did run the tests for the soft doubles and splitting (which she claimed aren't important) but she actually never reported any numbers.

Edit: I'm working on something which will aim to sort Sp21 indices, but it's far from complete.
 
#12
assume_R said:
I'd hesitate to say that. I know that flash uses a certain count in which adding +4 to Kat's indices happen to coincide nicely with the optimal index numbers :)

Yet for the aforementioned counts it isn't so straightforward.

The least important indices are indeed address in Kat's book as such, but thus far nobody has done an extensive study on sorting the most important indices based on importance, in the manner that D.S. did in BJA for blackjack indices, in which he found that after insurance, 16v10 was most important.

Kat's findings result in leaving approximately 28 indices (give or take), but she didn't give any numbers on relative importance, or indeed a mathemetical justification for removing some of them. Perhaps in her software she actually did run the tests for the soft doubles and splitting (which she claimed aren't important) but she actually never reported any numbers.

Edit: I'm working on something which will aim to sort Sp21 indices, but it's far from complete.
surr. 16 vs. 10
surr. 16 vs. A
H/S 13 vs. 5
H/S 14 vs. 3
surr. 15 vs. 10
surr 16 vs. 9
H/S 13 vs. 6
H/S 13 vs. 4
Double 9 vs. 5
Double 10 vs. 9
H/S 14 vs. 2

They're kind of in order, but the order and importance is going to be dependent on the specific count used and the spread.

As an aside, most systems of indices and rating of playing efficiency compare the indices to basic strategy for a flat bettor, but I don't think that's appropriate for any kind of counter. A counter can always use Counter's Basic Strategy and get a reasonable result with no indices, so when analyzing index plays I weight them, as well as the playing EoR for each card, relative to decisions the counter actually has to make on the fly and the amount of money he's likely to have down when he makes them. Turns out, in regular BJ the most important playing decisions a counter makes are splitting 10's, and hit/stand 15 vs. 10. H/S 16 vs. 10 is a non-decision for a counter, he can always stand on that hand and it won't make a significant difference in his long-term results.
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#13
Automatic Monkey said:
A counter can always use Counter's Basic Strategy and get a reasonable result with no indices, so when analyzing index plays I weight them, as well as the playing EoR for each card, relative to decisions the counter actually has to make on the fly and the amount of money he's likely to have down when he makes them.
So what would be a reasonable metric for evaluating the relative importance? e.g. SCORE of using counter b.s. versus SCORE of using the index?
 
#14
assume_R said:
So what would be a reasonable metric for evaluating the relative importance? e.g. SCORE of using counter b.s. versus SCORE of using the index?
Units per 100 hands. Applied empirically that factors in spread and frequency of the various hands at different counts.
 
Top