DD - best count?

[AnonymousCC]

Originally Posted by boneuphtoner

tthree is right. See attached for one of the most comprehensive comparisons ever.

http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage192.htm

Although this comparison was done with the side count. I doubt it would beat Halves without the side count, but that would need to be simmed.

What does the % mean on the Y-axle? (I'm not sure you use the same terminology as our europeans for Y-axle).

Originally Posted by tthree

HIOPT II is no easier than halves. KO is adequate but relatively weak. The fewer decks the stronger the more advanced counts become. If all you play is SD and DD, I would strongly suggest a more advanced count.

Thanks for the input. I will only play DD.

[Smoke8]

I used KO against this game with a 1 - 8 spread for 18 month's! Got fed up with playing a break even game. An AP on this site suggested ZEN with RA Indices. I took his recomendation to heart and with practice and patience have finally started putting some cash in my pocket. I think you will find Halves to be a good system, more difficult than ZEN, and a slightly lower win rate against your game of choice. HI OPT II, another excellent system, and without "A" side count will give you about the same results as ZEN. The ZEN system was easy for me because I was used to counting with the same tags, I only had to adjust to +2 for the 4,5,6 rather than + 1 ( KO ), and -2 for the 10 and Faces vs -1 ( KO ). I will always be grateful to the AP for his willingness to share and always look for his excellent, intellagant, and most helpful postings. I also thank all of the AP's for their contributions as well. If you wish to elaborate more, feel free to PM me.

[blackjack avenger]

KO, can win with this count
Hi op II ?
Zen ?
Halves
Hi op II, A side count

Probably in order weakest to strongest across all games. There is this thought halves does not do well in DD, this is not so.

Qfit & Sch show the strength of halves.

Only playing DD may shorten longevity, especially If you bet big or are aggressive.

[tthree]

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

KO, can win with this count
Hi op II ?
Zen ?
Halves
Hi op II, A side count

Probably in order weakest to strongest across all games. There is this thought halves does not do well in DD, this is not so.

Qfit & Sch show the strength of halves.

Only playing DD may shorten longevity, especially If you bet big or are aggressive.

Longevity in stronger counts at smaller spreads and shorter sessions. Any of the above systems listed after KO by BJ avenger are very strong should not require a spread wide enough to bring heat (1 to 6 spread should be quite profitable) if you keep your sessions down to a couple hours at most.

[gothic]

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

Thinks halves beats hi op II, without A side count.

Think halves is the best without A side count.

For double deck, wouldn't PE be a little more important than BC? This is just me thinking in general terms and might not be hip to fact completely, but my understanding of halves is it's basically a superior Hi-Lo, which kinda sucks in PE which is important in pitch games. I'd say Hi-Opt I at least (Hi-Opt II if you can hang) would do well in shredding this double-decker; not hard to sidecount aces at all in pitch games.

[blackjack avenger]

Originally Posted by gothic

For double deck, wouldn't PE be a little more important than BC? This is just me thinking in general terms and might not be hip to fact completely, but my understanding of halves is it's basically a superior Hi-Lo, which kinda sucks in PE which is important in pitch games. I'd say Hi-Opt I at least (Hi-Opt II if you can hang) would do well in shredding this double-decker; not hard to sidecount aces at all in pitch games.

Notice how BS & indices for DD are akin to multi deck? BC still dominates, even with better penetration because you want to be able to identify betting opportunities.

[tthree]

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

Notice how BS & indices for DD are akin to multi deck? BC still dominates, even with better penetration because you want to be able to identify betting opportunities.

With a lower tolerance for spreading by the casino and a wider range and frequency of high TC in double deck PE is much more important than BC. Indices with a high correlation have a much higher increase in EV when they are exceeded than weakly correlated indices. A lot of people think your correlation doesn't change the cards so what difference does it make. This is right but it is wrong thinking. Weak correlation means you are actually making the wrong play percentage wise a lot when you use the index. Strong correlation usually has you making the right play percentage wise which means EV spikes right away rather than raises slowly. This is chips in you stack at the tables. Side counts are a great tool for bolstering your weakly correlated match ups. If all you can hope to spread is about 1 to 6, BC is of limited use. PE becomes more profitable just due to the wide range and frequency of TC in pitch games. Then the weakening importance of BC as large spreads are not tolerated compared to the increase in EV found in PE makes PE become twice as important as BC in pitch games.

[blackjack avenger]

A spread of 1 to 6 I like BC
Deep penetration I like BC
In fact with very deep penetration halves can become numero uno!, depending on game.
PE rises as the quality of game drops due to poor penetration or self imposed betting constraints.

What is the hall mark of PE strength? Flat betting SD.

The only way to know for sure is with sims. Qfit did this and showed halves as the strongest count; without side counts, across virtually all playable games including DD! Qfit simmed a 1 to 4 & 1 to 8 spread for DD

Back to the OP
Best count for DD?
Hi op II with A side count
Followed by
Halves

[tthree]

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

A spread of 1 to 6 I like BC
Deep penetration I like BC
PE rises as the quality of game drops due to poor penetration or self imposed betting constraints.

What is the hall mark of PE strength? Flat betting SD.

The only way to know for sure is with sims. Qfit did this and showed halves as the strongest count; without side counts, across virtually all playable games including DD! Qfit simmed a 1 to 4 & 1 to 8 spread for DD

PE to a counter most affects his top bets. Flat betting sims mean nothing to what PE is to a counter. I am only talking the importance of PE to pitch games. I was not trying to tie it to which count is the best other than use on with a high PE.

PE rises as correlation becomes more important. If you need to burn 10 cards to have much affect on the right play PE is not to important. If burning a few cards is all it takes to swing a play PE is very important. For example if the first hand of DD burns 3 sevens. It has little affect on your count but greatly affects the proper decision for some key matchups that tend to be weak indices. On the other hand if you notice certain cards have not been seen after a deck is dealt this greatly affects what the correct play is. You have a big bet out and the count is +19 HIOPT II all the sevens remain after 1 deck has been played. Your hand is 14 v T. The linear counter stands as the TC is 5 over the index of +14. But a smart counter hits, the TC for the match up of 14 v T is -5 once your observation of no sevens being played is factored in. Even if 3 sevens had been seen the correct play is to hit as the matchup's TC is +13, one below the index. This is high PE at work making you money by increasing your TC correlation to the correct play. That is an example of side counting raising PE a counters best tool in pitch games.

Weak PE counting system cost too. Let's say you are using HILO and the TC is +3 with one deck remaining. You are doubling 11 v A with the dealer having the first seen ace since the index is +1; however, the +3 is due to having 3 extra low cards used already but the three extra aces left are low cards to this match up. This makes the matchup's TC 0 which is below the index. An ace neutral count would not mistakenly double this hand. Most of the illustrious 18 have this ace problem for ace reckoned counts. The ace acts like a low card but is counted as a high card for these most important playing decisions; insurance, 16 v T, 15 v T, 12 v 3, 12 v 2, 11 v A, 16 v 9, 13 v 2, 12 v 4, 12 v 5, 12 v 6 and 13 v3. That's 12 out of 18 of the illustrious 18. An ace neutral count would weight the ace exactly right for the other 6 matchups thereby increasing the correlation over ace reckoned counts for those hands as well.

[Gramazeka]

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/.../message/14388