FELT by QFIT

just browsed Norm's Ebook this evening and was very impressed by the FELT system (ie: RPC-Lite). Wat do you guys think?

here's the skinny:
Tags (a-x) = -2 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2

Balanced lvl 2.... FELT = Fairly Easy Level Two
Compromised indicies (go to QFIT's website, i don't feel like typing them out)

INS @ TC = 6 (+3 for SD)

BC: 98.37
PE: 55.47
IC: 77.99


*i'll delete this post if there's already a thread talkn' bout FELT

Can you provide links, I'd like to check this out.

This is a very good count -especially for shoe games.

What's drawing you to this count over something like Zen?

bit more simple, bit more effective

according to QFIT's website, Zen is "barely" stronger than RPC. By the numbers RPC (and FELT because of the same tags) has a .99 BC vs 96. This is my primary focus as i play vastly more 6D games than pitch games. Zen wins in PE and IC by a considerable margin .62 vs .55 and .85 vs .78. However, these are not as important to me so long as they are not detrimental to the system as a whole. ALSO, what makes FELT different from RPC is that it has compromised indexes which is a big plus, less too remember is never a bad thing. They are also simplified, having only two vlaues to remember. FELT counts aces and 10s as the same value, Zen does not, this makes things more difficult. FELT also performs VERY closely to Zen in 6D games, better in 8D, comparable to Zen AND UBZ2 in DD, falls to Zen but nearly matches UBZ2 in SD.

*info found here http://qfit.com/book/SuperSCORE.htm

Brett Harris settled this years ago, I thought - ZEN outperforms RPC in 6D, even in ENHC UK games. zg

From http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage91.htm

"That left RPC and Zen, both excellent strategies, with Zen having an extremely slight advantage in power. However, I find it slightly more difficult to count than RPC because the ace and ten are counted differently. That left RPC as the basis for FELT."

I'm the guy who came up with the UBZ-Open Source compromise indices. I played around with that count before I ultimately decided to switch to a balanced count because I was always second guessing the wong-out points. Zen seemed to be the most logical choice, and I found a number of compromise indices that simmed really well. I got my speed up to what I thought was an acceptable level, and then Norm's book came out. I simmed FELT and his more indexed FELT-F. FELT-F performed very well, on par with my own Zen but with fewer indices. Then I tried counting with FELT. Much to my amazement, after 2 days, I was able to attain a speed I'd never accomplished EVER, even with level 1 counts....6 consecutive decks in 92 seconds. I'm convinced there are so many more cancellation opportunities with this count versus Zen. Currently I'm using FELT (compromised) and I think it is very easy to use. Plenty good enough for the amount I play.