Low 6 Count, the inverse of Ace/10 Front Count

Fred Renzey describes the Ace/10 Front Count in his Blackjack Bluebook II.
As the name implies, Ace/10 Front Count keeps track of only the Ace's and 10's.
Ace/10 Front Count is easy and simple, and it's great for recreational gamblers.
I'm postulating the possibility of the "Low 6 Count".
Count 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7.
Effect of removal (from a single deck):
2: 0.40 %
3: 0.43 %
4: 0.52 %
5: 0.67 %
6: 0.45 %
7: 0.30 %
As the low cards are removed, the advantage shifts towards the player.
The Ace/10 Front Count keeps track of only five different cards.
However, my "Low 6 Count" keeps track of six different cards.
Will counting an extra card offer a higher advantage?
I don't have the ability to run a computer simulation, but it seems intuitive
to me that keeping track of 6 cards would be better than only 5.
Also, the additional work involved is negligible.
In theory, the Ace/10 Front Count can be modified to "Ace/10/9 Front Count".
Effect of removal (from a single deck):
9: -0.15 %
T: -0.51 %
A: -0.59 %
The "Ace/10/9 Front Count" keeps track of six different cards.

By the way, I personally use Hi-Lo and play 6-deck games.

It really depends on which cards they are. The A/10 count will have the player betting more when the remaining cards are mostly tens and aces. That is good. Your count will have the player betting more when the remaining cards are mostly sevens, eights, nines, tens and/or aces. That is not as good.

-Sonny-

You seem to have misunderstood my "Low 6 Count".
You're correct in that in the Ace/10 Front Count, you bet more when the
remaining shoe is rich in Ace's and 10's.
In my Low 6 Count, you'd bet more when the remaining shoe is depleted
of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7.
There's a subtle difference there.
In both systems, you also have to estimate the remaining shoe by gauging
the discard tray.
By the way, removing 8 has the effect of mere 0.01 %, which is why all
counting systems ignore it.

If you're already using hi-lo why not just stick with that? Your returns will be better.

You are better off with basic strategy than using a simplistic count.

Deathclutch, I'm not trying to devise a new counting system for myself.
I'm happy with the Hi-Lo system.
Fred Rensey isn't using the Ace/10 Front Count himself, either.
I'm postulating a simple, yet effective, counting system, just like the Ace/10 Front Count.
The Low 6 Count would be half a step above the Ace/10 Front Count.
These simple systems are for beginners who gamble recreationally.

QFIT, the basic strategy guarantees that you'll lose with the disadvantage of approximately 0.5%.
These simple counting systems neutralize the disadvantage, or even push a tad further.

Why do these simple counting systems exist at all? And why are they so simple.
They're simple because you only add (and not subtract).
It's a lot easier to continuously add without subtracting.
After two decks have been dealt in a 6-deck shoe, you try to gauge the advantage (or lack thereof)
and vary your bets accordingly.
You can teach someone to use the Ace/10 Front Count, or my Low 6 Count, while eating lunch.
Also, you don't have to practice counting. Hi-Lo system requires some practice.
However, counting straight up in one direction requires no practice at all, because we all already
know how to count.

I imagine it would perform a bit worse than the Silver Fox method. The problem is that counting only one group of cards (low cards in this case) means that all other cards are grouped together. In this case the 8 is grouped with the big cards. Ideally you would want to ignore the 8s. And giving the 9 the same value as the tens and aces will hurt the betting efficiency even more. You could be raising your bets into a deck filled with eights and nines.

-Sonny-

I don't buy into the idea that subtracting by 1 is any harder than adding by 1. If someone played BS and used a simple unbalanced count, they'd at least be overcoming the HE, and I honestly don't believe something like KO or REKO used strictly for betting purposes is any harder than counting low cards and guestimating your advantage through the rest of the shoe.

Arctic,
I think your idea is a good one -- for recreational players. The Ace/10 Front Count has a theoretical BC of 89% (10's thru Aces at -1 each and 2's thru 9's at +.625 each). The Low 6 Front Count would theoretically be 93% (2's thru 7's at +1 each and 8's thru Aces at -.857 each) -- as would Ace/9/10. These figures of course assume (and somewhat impractically) that your deck estimation is perfect when you take your front count reading. Furthermore, since you'd be counting a few more cards, a better point to take your reading would probably be at the 1.75 deck mark in the tray (91 cards) rather than 2 decks, thereby giving the player a few more hands to "bet up" his good counts.

I know Norm says Basic Strategy is better than these amteurish counts due to the greatly increased ROR associated with the necessary bet spreading combined with their tiny advantages. Two things that I think render that stance invalid are:

1) Practically no Basic Strategy player merely flat bets anyway.
2) A front count player can reduce his basic unit from what it used to be before he counted, so that all his bets across his spreading range yield the same ROR as flat betting at his old stakes. Then he's left with a positive EV rather than negative, which in turn reduces his ROR.

This would give all those progressive betting addicts a valid queue for when to raise their bets.

So, you are saying that no BS strategy player has the discipline to flat bet. But somehow they will have the discipline to lower their bets and still flat bet the vast majority of hands. (Weak systems result in flat-betting more than typical counting systems.) I don't buy it. But, I covered this in my study anyhow. I used the SAME average bet for a BS player and a weak system player. See the two pages at [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Modern Blackjack Page 197.

[/FONT]

Please, do not tell people that they can beat the casinos with "no practice at all." This is simply false. Knowing how to count and beating the casinos are very different.

Also, Caccarulo and I investigated this count (2-7 as +1) years back and found it slightly inferior to Speed Count.

Norm,
The recreational "beginner" counts we're discussing are for players who have learned their basic strategy and want more, but are not up for the dedicated financial and technical rigors of true advantage play.

These players don't flat bet, not so much because they don't have the discipline to flat bet, but because they're searching for a way to improve their results beyond basic strategy by varying their bets according to something -- anything. "Pressing up" is an instinctive response to this desire. A weak system such as Ace/10 FC instructs the player to abandon the "pressing up" instinct in favor of varying the bet according to the front count total instead.

Regarding your study of Basic Strategy vs. weak counts such as A/10 FC, the OPP Count, etc., I'm sure it's understood that it is suicide to use a max bet of $80 with a $500 bankroll. Also, a 1-to-16 spread for a player who is probably used to pressing from 1-to-3 or 4 would be entirely too much to ask him to get psychologically adjusted to. Remember, these are recreational players!

The Ace/10 FC recommends a 1-to-6 spread with wonging out on 25% of the shoes (based on the front count at the 2 dealt deck mark) and then wonging in after each of those wongouts (about one-fourth of all his new shoes). It also specifies a 12 max. bet pocket stake for a 3 or 4 hour session (probably 300 hands). By the "square root rule" then, 1000 hands would require about 22 max bets. These parameters were designed to equip the avid basic strategy player to step up in his game without demanding that full quantum leap into professional level play.

Put it together, and a recreational Ace/10 FC user's game plan for going on vacation to casino country and playing 1000 hands at a $5 table would be a 5-to-30 spread and a $650 bankroll (with the specified abstinence rules abided by).

For an apples-to-apples comparison, a quick approximate risk analysis using the parameters of a basic strategy player betting $10 sixty percent of the time, then $20 and $30 twenty percent each shows his 1000 hand ROR at about 34% on a $650 bankroll. His EV for the trip was -$80.
An A/10 FC player spreading from $8 to $50 showed the same 1000 hand ROR of 34% on the same bankroll, and his EV was +$32. Note that these were done quickly, and subject to some error, but I suspect not much.

Now we're adding wonging in and wonging out. We are talking about a BS player that doesn't even have the discipline to flat bet. But we are asking him to reduce his bet (unlikely), ramp according to a count that VERY rarely allows him to stop flat betting, wong-in and wong-out, all accurately. This is a "recreational" player, only we are telling him to stand around watching instead of playing on his occasional trips. Since you have lowered his min bet, you are also asking him to find a $5 table with an empty seat at the point the count increases, that allows mid-shoe entry. And all this for as minuscule EV.

If you actually presented the strategy in this manner to a recreational player, telling him how much time he will be standing around counting instead of playing and telling him he has a 34% chance of bankruptcy, and for that he has an EV of $32, and telling him honestly the weeks of work he will have to invest, he would never try. If you show him the range of probable results for his own style of play that allows him to play the way he feels, not wong, bet at a $10 table, instead of a $5 table, when he wants, not practice, enjoy playing the game instead of counting and compare this to the range of results for using this strategy over this small a number of hands, he won't see much difference. Given this choice, I wouldn't count.

By far the most beneficial thing we could do for the recreational BS player is tell him how to recognize the best games. Avoid 6:5 games, avoid H17 games if possible, avoid CSM's, seek out LS and RSA. This will have the effect of getting them to boycott bad games and put pressure on the casinos to offer good ones.

If we wanted to teach the fundamentals of AP to civilians, it might be best to teach it as if it was a superstition. There's a classic movie "Christmas in Connecticut" which features a doctor who moves to a rural Connecticut town where they don't believe in doctors but they do accept quacks, so he sets up a medical office in the back of a butcher shop and pretends to be a quack, while actually providing legitimate medical care. Maybe a easy-to-remember superstition like "Don't raise your bet until you've seen ten 5's" would have enough value to provide a muggle with a tiny edge and keep him away from the bad superstitions. At the same time it could produce enough quack counters at the table to provide some cover for the powerful ones.

Wonderful suggestion. I'll set up a site named ProgressionsAreUs.com. We could redefine all of the popular myths. Flow of the cards, third base controls the table, etc.

Norm,
I have great respect for your analytical skills -- and for your fair mindedness in general. But I can't help getting the feeling that you are biased on this matter.

Wonging out and back in with the Ace/10 FC such that the user is playing 55% of the observed hands (whether from the aisle or from the table) has always been a part of the system -- it's in the book.

When semi-serious gamblers begin thinking about the impact of chronic losing, they realize that they need to make some changes in their game -- anything but quit playing. The best analogy I can think of is when a purely recreational poker player becomes sick and tired of getting his brains bashed in. He starts to realize that he can't play every hand -- and that there are times when he should fold Top Pair, or 2 Pair, and many times give up his blind. He begins to understand that wanting to play worse than wanting to win is what has precluded his winning.

The part about the $5 tables is just an arbitrary component of that bankroll/betting structure. Any multiple of that also applies. We all see throngs of players at the $25 tables pressing it up to $75, then they draw markers from the pit. These players blow a couple thousand on a trip, and keep on coming. Instead of pressing from $25 to $75 according to the last result, they can spread from $15 to $90 with the same overall risk and alter their EV from negative to positive. Some players actually "get" this when it's explained to them. The 34% ROR was only a chosen ROR to match up with that of a BS player on the same bankroll, and then compare EV's. The 12 max bet rule for the Ace/10 FC is designed to put the one day session at an ROR below 10%.

I have in fact presented the Ace/10 FC to several players who are sick of losing year after year at blackjack. Some have taken me up on it and some not. Many of these are also poker players and they can relate. They don't want to go to the poor house, and they don't want to quit playing. The ones who simply need action just blow it off, and the ones who thrive on competition get into it. Weak starter systems like the Ace/10 FC are no way to make any real money, but they beat the snot out of losing just like everybody else. That's their purpose.

Biased? I have given facts and reasoning. Caccarulo and I spent a great deal of time trying to find a simple strategy that worked. I independently came up with the Speed Count, and after we tested it to death, looking for any possible way to make it effective, concluded that it was not a viable strategy.

The Poker is analogy is not on point in my opinion. Folding bad hands is an extremely important aspect of proper Poker play enormously changing your odds. A weak count does not enormously change your odds and can in fact be very costly.

If people are tired of losing year after year, tell them to use a viable strategy. It's hard enough to win with that and I don't tell people they will win with any strategy. But telling players that they have an edge over today's casinos with a weak strategy makes no sense to me.

Okay Norm. We have both presented our points on this in a public forum, and for my part, now I think it's time to let it rest. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "biased" -- your view is your view. I apologize for that. Let's be friends.

serious recreational player

i often use a weak system, coined the fuzzy count by moi.

it's a thinking man's approach that uses the knowledge of a lot of the stuff of Renzey, QFIT, et al.

My Take on this

Aww some blackjack loving :gaga:, i wish all discussions were as civil as this one that would have made my job and that of Sonny's much easier.

I guess my stance is somewhere in between (it has to be anyway )


You cant expect from the recreational players who hit the casino twice a year to learn to use any counting system no matter how simple the system is. You will be lucky if they even learn basic strategy and flat bet. These players are there for entertainment purposes so the best thing for them would be to flat bet a max of 1/50 of their trip bankroll and play BS if they want the fun to last for the entire weekend.

For players who make more than 10 trips a year, assuming they have perfect knowledge of basic strategy (a lot of them dont) it becomes more beneficial to add a counting system for betting purposes (Playing decisions would still be made using BS) to their repertoire no matter how weak or simple the system is. Most of these players hate to flat bet and like to change their bets (even though their bet spreads tend to be modest 1-4 or 1-5). So it would be more beneficial for them to bump up their bets when the counting system they are using detect a favorable deck composition, than raising their bets based on the results of previous hands or hunches.

Personally i was never a fan of easy/weak "Speed Count" family. If you want a simple approach: Use basic strategy for playing decisions(no indices to memorize and play with), and use easy level I unbalanced count such as KO or REKO to make you bets with a bet spread that you are comfortable with.