Memorizing cards played single deck?

#1
Perfect Play

If one could hypothetically keep track of the cards dealt as their dealt (like rain man I suppose) in a single deck, Where would one find information regarding basic strategy variations and statistics with this type of scenario (knowing when to hit on 18, 19. Knowing when to stay 12)? I think it's so improbable, there's not much information online pertaining to it. So I thought I would try this website. Any help would be very appreciated. Thanks guys.

Thanks for your responses. Hmm I google'd "the gordon count"; "The gordon count blackjack system" and a few others, and could not find anything about side counting every card in a single deck. Any tips? anyone?

hmm. maybe i'm not asking correctly. Maybe the gordon count isn't what i'm looking for. I want to know the basic strategy, and all the variation for if you had 13 counts, one for each card #/symbol. so, you keep track of 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, A. Therefore you know the remaining cards left in the shoe. Therefore you would have, well a TON of indexes to memorize. ex; single deck; near the end of shoe: remaining cards left in deck 4-2's, 4-3's, 0 of 4-9, 3-10's, 3-aces. your 17 vs dealer 10. so, 11/14 or 79% chance I would not bust,so clearly I would hit. I want to know the hundreds of statistics for the hundreds of scenarios possible. Thanks!

Theoretically, if you could know what was left in the shoe to be played after every hand, lets say single deck for plausibility purposes (lol like it's still plausible for people other than savants) what kind of player advantage could you attain? obviously varying strategy based on the 13 counts. 65%? even 70%? maybe higher? I mean the occasional/rare no face cards or 9's left in the shoe, and your going to hit 12 and 13 100% of the time; 14 70-80% of the time with those figures. I'm curious if anyone knew of a percentage. All I've gotten comment wise was "have a happy early retirement" lol. Thanks, any info appreciated.

Theoretically, if you could know what was left in the shoe to be played after every hand, lets say single deck for plausibility purposes (lol like it's still plausible for people other than savants) what kind of player advantage could you attain? obviously varying strategy based on the 13 counts. 65%? even 70%? maybe higher? I mean the occasional/rare no face cards or 9's left in the shoe, and your going to hit 12 and 13 100% of the time; 14 70-80% of the time with those figures. I'm curious if anyone knew of a percentage. All I've gotten comment wise was "have a happy early retirement" lol. Thanks, any info appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gamblor

Well-Known Member
#2
There was a discussion on this not too long ago. I think the consensus was nobody really knows what your optimal advantage is and what is the optimal thing to do for every possible permutations of the "count".

Or if somebody knows they're not saying :)
 
#3
It is called The Gordon Count. A simple google search of the Gordon count and you will find everything you could possibly want to know about side counting every card and every possible Basic strategy variation. And it is not impossible. There are people who have something called identic memory and photographic memory that could easy do it. There are also personal simplified versions of the count but those are few and far in between still expecting an advanced skill and I.Q.

If you still are interested I would suggest localized severe blows to certain parts of your head and neck to possibly become an acquired savant. You might completely lose all social skill but at least you could possibly become the single greatest card counter the world has ever known. Granted that you don't forget to learn it.
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#4
Gordon ... PART #1

Re: Gordon w/ All Side Counts
________________________________________
• Subject: Re: Gordon w/ All Side Counts
• From: Abdul Jalib <[email protected]>
• Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:17:19 PST
• Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated
• Old-Message-ID: <[email protected]>
• Organization: Positive Expected Value, Unlimited
• References: <[email protected]>
________________________________________
[email protected] writes:

>
> Does anyone know where to get the complete strategy tables for the Gordon
> count (2,3,4,5=+1, 10=-1), with side counts of Ace, 6, 7, 8, and 9?
>
> I heard this was the most powerful card counting system.
>
> If you can actually master it (wouldn't be easy). You have betting correlation
> of .98 and an amazing playing efficiency of .922!
>
> I would like to know if anyone has ever used this system in actual casino
> play, and are the complete strategy tables in print anywhere?

I don't know if anyone has ever used it, but I'll bet you my entire
bankroll (except one penny of course :) that someone somewhere sometime
has used it. I think the following could be the Gordon Count's first
time "in print" for free. First I'll give risk averse strategy
adjustments using a modified version of the "bj-strat" program. Then
I'll give the multiparameter adjustments for all the side counts.

Risk Averse Main Count Strategy Adjustments
===========================================

Blackjack Count Strategy Adjustments

Cards: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ace
Values: 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0
1 deck, no double on splits, dealer hits soft 17
300 unit bankroll, 1-3 spread

Hit/Stand Strategy

Dealer's Upcard

Player's Total 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ace

Hard 21 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 20 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 19 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 18 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 17 -18 -19 -20 -18 -20 -18 -11 -12 -15 -4
Hard 16 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 6 6 3 0 3
Hard 15 -5 -7 -8 -9 -11 10 11 8 5 6
Hard 14 -3 -4 -6 -7 -10 14 Hit Hit Hit 12
Hard 13 -1 -2 -4 -5 -7 Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit
Hard 12 3 2 0 -1 -3 Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit

Soft 21 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Soft 20 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Soft 19 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Soft 18 -10 -12 -10 -11 -12 -18 -8 Hit 15 8
Soft 17 Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit 15 Hit Hit Hit Hit


Surrender Strategy

Dealer's Upcard

Player's Total 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ace

Hard 21 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 20 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 19 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 18 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 17 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 16 11 3
Hard 16 ... ... ... ... ... ... 3 0 -3 -4
Hard 15 ... ... ... ... ... ... 7 3 0 -1
Hard 14 ... ... ... ... ... ... 14 8 3 5
Hard 13 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 17 8 16
Hard 12 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 18 13 ...


Double Down Strategy

Dealer's Upcard

Player's Total 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ace

Hard 11 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -7 -4 -3 -3 0
Hard 10 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -6 -3 -1 7 4
Hard 9 1 0 -2 -4 -6 3 8 ... ... ...
Hard 8 15 11 7 4 2 13 ... ... ... ...
Hard 7 ... 18 12 9 7 ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 6 ... ... 15 12 10 ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 5 ... ... 17 13 11 ... ... ... ... ...
Hard 4 ... ... 18 13 12 ... ... ... ... ...

Soft 20 12 11 8 6 4 16 ... ... ... ...
Soft 19 11 6 4 2 -1 17 ... ... ... ...
Soft 18 3 -1 -11 -12 -14 ... ... ... ... ...
Soft 17 2 -4 -9 -14 -14 ... ... ... ... ...
Soft 16 ... 8 -2 -6 -12 ... ... ... ... ...
Soft 15 17 6 -1 -3 -6 ... ... ... ... ...
Soft 14 12 7 0 -2 -4 ... ... ... ... ...
Soft 13 11 7 3 0 -2 ... ... ... ... ...


Pair Split Strategy (non risk averse)

Dealer's Upcard

Player's Pair 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ace

Ace,Ace -10 -11 -12 -12 -14 -9 -8 -8 -8 -5
10,10 12 9 6 4 3 12 19 ... ... ...
9,9 -1 -2 -3 -5 -6 8 split split -20* 1
8,8 split split split split split split split 8* 3* -2
7,7 split split split split split split -7* -14* -16* ...
6,6 -2 -4 -7 -9 -10 -2* -9* -19* ... ...
5,5 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
4,4 ... ... ... ... ... -20* -20* ... ... ...
3,3 7 4 -1 -6 -5 split -16* ... ... ...
2,2 9 5 -2 -7 -8 split -14* -20* -19* ...


Multiparameter Strategy Adjustments
===================================

You can improve your strategy by using side counts. That's what is
meant by "multiparameter strategy adjustments".

Of course, side counts will give you headaches for multiple decks,
but then you don't get much for strategy adjustments on multiple
decks anyway, so then you might switch to High-Low or Zen or Halves, or
perhaps just keep a side count of aces.

Strategy adjustments are worth *beaucoup* on deeply dealt single deckers.
In fact, very deep in the deck, strategy adjustments are worth much more
than ranging your bet according to the count. You can find a deeply dealt
single decker by choosing the right casino and/or by choosing the right
number of players (e.g., 2 rounds of 7 sitting towards third base.)

Below, the only columns that really make sense to use are A, 6, 7, 8, 9,
i.e., the cards which Gordon counts as 0. For example, look at the
very first line of the table, the "0" in the top left corner.
If you have 17 versus dealer ace then excess observed aces should be
counted +0 (i.e., as if they were a neutral card.) That was easy, eh?
But look at the "1" under the 7-column. This means that excess observed
sevens should be counted as +1 (i.e., as if they were a small card for
the purpose of this decision.) If you have seen 3 sevens in half a
deck, then you saw one excess seven over the average. After
adjusting your count, you then use the regular Gordon strategy
adjustment tables. So excess observed sevens will make you less likely
to hit 17 vs. ace (probably because it's that much less likely that the
dealer has a pat 18 to try to beat.)

The columns are for the card being side counted. Some of the
numbers, particularly for splitting, seem a bit wacky and probably
are erroneous. This table was generated using hand typed data from
_Theory of Blackjack_ (and a simple program to process these data)
and so human error is possible in some of the values. Use at your
own risk. You can and should reformat the data by hand into the
format used in _World's Greatest Blackjack Book_. You have thus far
paid me insufficient funds (my records indicate a total of $0.00 to
date) to do this grunt work for you or to do the extra work necessary
to figure out where the wacky values are coming from. See _World's
Greatest Blackjack Book_ and _Theory of Blackjack_ for more information
on multiparameter counts.

For example of how to reformat, you would have an ace adjustment table
that looked like this:

DEALER UPCARD
HAND 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
17 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 0
16 +1 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 0
etc

And then a separate table like that for each of the other cards you
wish to side count. With this count, it would be a good idea to
side count 6's 7's and 8's in one group, for maximum bang for brain
cells. You can do this by averaging their adjustment values.

[There is no more plain text after this point, just tables of numbers,
so you may wish to skip the rest of this article. Remember, the columns
below are the side count cards.]
 

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#5
Gordon ... PART #2


dealer ACE

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 -1
0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 -1 -1
0 0 0 1 1 3 3 -1 -1 -2
0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 -2 -2
-1 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 -2

doubling 11-10
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1
-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1

hitting soft 18
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 0 0 -2 0 1 0 -1

splitting (99)(88)(77)(66)(33)(aa)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-6 -2 2 1 1 3 1 1 5 -2
-2 0 0 2 2 -2 0 2 2 -1
-87 -71 -89 -65 64 78 241 38 60 -42
1 1 2 3 3 -1 -2 -3 -4 0
-4 2 8 7 3 -13 -14 -11 10 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1

dealer 10

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 2 3 -2 -2 -1 1 0 -1
0 0 1 2 2 -1 1 0 0 -1
0 0 0 1 2 3 1 0 -1 -1
0 -1 0 0 1 2 7 0 -1 -2
0 -1 -1 0 0 1 6 6 -2 -3
0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 4 5 6 -3

doubling 11-10
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1
-2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 -1

hitting soft 18
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 4 7 -2 -1 -1 -5 -2 1 0

splitting (88)(33)(22)(aa)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 -1 -1
1 0 -3 -1 0 4 7 7 -2 -3
1 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 5 5 -3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1

dealer 9

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 2 3 3 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 -1
1 1 1 2 2 -1 -2 0 0 -1
0 0 0 1 2 2 -2 0 -1 -1
0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 -1 -2
0 0 -1 -1 0 2 3 8 -2 -3
0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 2 8 7 -3

doubling 11-10
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 -1

hitting soft 18
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 5 6 -1 -1 -2 -3 -6 -4 0

splitting (99)(88)(33)(22)(aa)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-2 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 -1
1 1 2 0 0 0 -1 2 0 -1
-1 -8 -14 -12 -5 23 34 36 -6 -12
0 -3 0 -1 -1 -2 1 10 8 -3
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 -1

dealer 8

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 3 3 3 -2 -2 -2 -3 -2 0
1 1 2 2 2 -1 -1 -2 0 -1
1 0 1 2 2 2 -2 -2 0 -1
1 0 0 1 2 2 3 -3 -1 -1
1 0 0 -1 1 3 3 3 -1 -2
0 -1 -1 -2 -1 1 3 3 8 -3

doubling 11-9
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1
0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1

hitting soft 18
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 3 3 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -3 -1

soft doubling 18
31 44 48 -28 -29 -24 -20 -14 -35 7

splitting (99)(77)(66)(33)(22)(aa)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-3 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 -1
1 2 3 4 -4 -5 -6 5 4 -1
1 1 2 3 3 -1 -2 -2 -2 0
-1 20 35 23 2 -46 -56 -54 6 18
2 -5 -5 -6 -8 -2 6 25 26 -8
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1

dealer 7

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 2 2 2 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
1 1 2 2 2 -1 -2 -2 -2 0
1 1 2 2 2 2 -2 -2 -2 -1
1 0 1 2 2 2 2 -3 -3 -1
1 0 0 1 2 2 2 3 -4 -2
1 -1 -1 -1 0 2 3 3 3 -3

doubling 11-8
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1
0 1 1 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1

hitting soft 17
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 1 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1

soft doubling (a7)(a6)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-3 -8 -9 9 7 6 5 4 -2 -2
1 -1 -1 0 5 3 1 0 -2 -2

splitting (99)(66)(33)(22)(aa)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-7 -3 2 3 1 3 4 2 -1 -1
1 1 2 2 2 -2 -2 -2 -3 0
-1 12 14 13 -2 -21 -26 -25 7 7
-13 3 21 39 15 -2 -12 -60 -60 17
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1

dealer 6

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 -2

doubling 11-7
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1

soft doubling (a9)-(a2)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1
1 -1 -1 2 3 1 1 0 0 -1
1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 -1
2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
2 1 1 1 1 -2 0 0 -1 -1
2 2 1 1 1 -1 -2 0 -1 -1
2 1 2 1 1 0 -1 -2 -1 -1

splitting (99)(44)(33)(22)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1
2 2 2 1 1 -1 -2 0 -1 -1
1 1 1 2 2 -1 -1 -1 0 -1
1 1 1 2 2 0 0 -2 -2 -1

dealer 5

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1

doubling 11-7
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1

soft doubling (a9)-(a2)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1
-1 -1 2 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1
-1 -1 -1 2 3 3 1 0 0 -1
0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 3 0 -1 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 0 -2 0 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -2 -1 -1

splitting (99)(44)(33)(22)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1
0 2 2 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 2 2 1 -1 -1 0 -1
0 1 1 2 2 2 0 -1 -2 -1

dealer 4

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 2 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 1 2 0 -1 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2

doubling 11-7
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1
0 0 1 2 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1

soft doubling (a9)-(a2)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1
-1 -1 1 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -1
-1 -2 -2 3 3 3 3 1 0 -2
1 -1 -1 0 3 3 3 0 -1 -2
2 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 -1 -2
2 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -2 -1 -1

splitting (99)(44)(33)(22)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 -1 -1
0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 -2
0 0 1 2 2 1 0 -2 -1 -1
-1 0 1 3 3 3 2 -4 -5 0

dealer 3

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 -1 -1
1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 -1 -1
0 0 0 1 2 2 2 -1 -1 -1
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2

doubling 11-7
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1

soft doubling (a9)-(a2)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1
-1 -1 1 2 2 2 1 1 -1 -1
-1 -3 -4 3 3 3 3 3 0 -2
1 -1 -2 -2 4 4 4 4 -1 -2
3 -1 -1 0 0 4 4 4 -1 -3
2 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 -1 -2
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 -1 -1
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1

splitting (99)(77)(66)(33)(22)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 -1 -1
-1 -1 -2 -2 5 5 3 4 -2 -2
0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 -2
0 0 1 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1
-1 1 1 5 7 6 2 -8 -19 1

dealer 2

hitting 17-12
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 -1
1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 -1
0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 -1 -1
0 0 0 1 2 2 2 -1 -1 -1
0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 -1 -2
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 -2

doubling 11-7
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1
0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 -2
0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 -2

soft doubling (a9)-(a2)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1
-1 -2 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 -2
-1 -3 -5 2 4 4 3 3 2 -2
1 -2 -3 -4 4 4 4 4 4 -3
4 -1 -2 -3 -2 6 5 5 4 -4
3 1 0 -1 0 -1 2 2 2 -2
2 1 1 0 1 0 -1 1 1 -2
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 1 -1

splitting (99)(77)(66)(33)(22)
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 -1
-3 -3 -3 -4 5 7 5 6 4 -4
0 0 0 -1 1 2 3 2 2 -2
0 0 1 1 2 0 -1 -2 1 -1
-1 2 2 5 7 5 0 -12 -15 2
 
#6
FLASH1296 said:
And then a separate table like that for each of the other cards you
wish to side count. With this count, it would be a good idea to
side count 6's 7's and 8's in one group, for maximum bang for brain
cells. You can do this by averaging their adjustment values.
I heard something about the power of a block side count of 6, 7 and 8 suggested by someone on this site. Is Gordon Part II for the block side count?
 
#7
Kilowan said:
hmm. maybe i'm not asking correctly. Maybe the gordon count isn't what i'm looking for. I want to know the basic strategy, and all the variation for if you had 13 counts, one for each card #/symbol. so, you keep track of 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, A. Therefore you know the remaining cards left in the shoe. Therefore you would have, well a TON of indexes to memorize. ex; single deck; near the end of shoe: remaining cards left in deck 4-2's, 4-3's, 0 of 4-9, 3-10's, 3-aces. your 17 vs dealer 10. so, 11/14 or 79% chance I would not bust,so clearly I would hit. I want to know the hundreds of statistics for the hundreds of scenarios possible. Thanks!
Actually the gordon count is a huge short cut to what you are talking about. What you are talking about has different values for each card for each hand match up to see how it moves the number for the play and the hand in question. You would need a heirachy of decisions for hands. For 16 v T one of your most common decisions you would first use your set of ten count valves for the surrender option, multiply them by the count for the card in question and add to the full "shoe" number for the decision. Once you decided you weren't going to surrender you would do the same thing for the standing adjustments (all different than the surrender ones) for the ten card ranks and the standing full pack value. You might get 88 v T and have to decide surrender then split and finally hit. The virtual impossibility of doing these in your head at a live game has the conversation start with the gordon count which just might be doable since it is much, much easier.
 
#8
Question about ultimate player advantage?

I'm curious of the %player advantage for this hypothetical situation:
Savant syndrome, gifts with no disability of course. What kind of %advantage would this individual have playing blackjack single deck,knowing the rest of the remaining cards in the shoe as well as the thouuuuuuuuuusands (well actually more like millions i think lol) of indexes he has packed in his brain because of his lovely photographic memory for EVERY situation, for every player cards vs dealer cards with the remaining shoe already in his head. so he knows when to hit, when not to hit in EVERY situation with 100% certainty of his statistical advantage. Is there a %advantage for this situation. i'm sure if someones calculated it, it sure is high lol. Thanks
 

AC232323

Well-Known Member
#9
It would be very dependent on the penetration and I would wager that the advantage is not nearly as high as you think it would be for typical single deck pen.
 
#10
Kilowan said:
I'm curious of the %player advantage for this hypothetical situation:
Savant syndrome, gifts with no disability of course. What kind of %advantage would this individual have playing blackjack single deck,knowing the rest of the remaining cards in the shoe as well as the thouuuuuuuuuusands (well actually more like millions i think lol) of indexes he has packed in his brain because of his lovely photographic memory for EVERY situation, for every player cards vs dealer cards with the remaining shoe already in his head. so he knows when to hit, when not to hit in EVERY situation with 100% certainty of his statistical advantage. Is there a %advantage for this situation. i'm sure if someones calculated it, it sure is high lol. Thanks

What is up with the damned Gordon count questions.

Let me start by saying this. Single deck game using a side count of every card is, in my opinion less rewarding than playing a 6 deck game spreading 1-12 wonging in using the high low system.

If you play against the house heads up in a six deck game you might get 35 hands per deck in if your lucky. You wouldn't be spreading 1-12 in a single deck game anyways so I think you see why learning such an advanced counting system is pointless. If not let me continue.

Again playing a six deck game Playing against the house back counting then wonging in with a bet spread of 1-12, you are only playing advantageous counts of 2% or greater player advantage. Wonging out when a deck goes sour.

Now playing a single deck game side counting every card, it is most likely going to be no-mid deck entry. That is burn number 1.

Number 2 would be you are going to get stuck playing all the counts.
- and positive.

Sorry to say but so very true.

But wait you say. I know the correct move to make at all times because I have a unique understanding of the most advanced counting system there is. Which in my mind it may read that way on paper but in a real world environment you are up **** creek without a paddle. Well here is my counter argument. The penetration is poor. Your playing at tops 30 cards maybe once in a blue moon 35 cards. Your seeing 6x the shuffles an hour taking away valuable time away from making money. That would be anywhere from 5 hands to 10 hands total, GRANTED THAT YOU ARE PLAYING BY YOURSELF. Also just because you are making the correct playing decisions every single time, DOES NOT AND i REPEAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WIN THAT HAND MORE TIMES THAN NOT. which lets face it. ROTFL. Not only that but your spread has to be quite small for the sake of cover. You might be winning at will but you can also lose at will with such a count.

Yes you may have a way to make the best possible call, but sometimes the best possible call is not always the best possible call.

Perfect play is an impossibility, literally. You maybe taking the dealers bust card. Who knows. Just because you know wat cards are too come does not change the outcome of said cards.

Playing a complicated Gordon count you are probably less likely to win. Sometimes to much thinking is a bad thing.

Unless your Stephen Hawking of course. Then its the only thing to do. lol

I made a joke

Bazinga
 
Last edited:
#11
AC232323 said:
It would be very dependent on the penetration and I would wager that the advantage is not nearly as high as you think it would be for typical single deck pen.

Huh I guess everything I said could have been explained in your sentence. Couldn't it. But then I would not have been able to chime in what I really think about it would I?

Which is worse saying how you feel or just the jest of it. Nothing ever gets settled if you hold back, or don't make a smart remark, in effect ending what would have obviously been a pointless conversation.

BAZINGA
 

Sucker

Well-Known Member
#12
After thousands of man-hours using a computer that does exactly what you're talking about; Ken Uston reported that the team's advantage was about 3%. I don't recall how large of a spread they were using.
 
#13
Sucker said:
After thousands of man-hours using a computer that does exactly what you're talking about; Ken Uston reported that the team's advantage was about 3%. I don't recall how large of a spread they were using.
And that was on single deck. Against shoes counting computers are pointless.
 

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
#14
If you have ace side count, the best counting system is Advanced Omega II to pair with because you can overweight ace without any side effects. Most counting system put equal or half weight on aces over tens because they don't want to screw up insurance correlation and playing efficiency. But on Betting Correlation criteria alone, ace is 300% more important than ten on increasing your chance to get Blackjack. Of course, because ace is a "small" card in nature, 300% overweight is too much. Based on my simulation results, the perfect weight of ace should be 150% or 133% (Reverse APC) of ten.

Reverse APC is the only major counting system putting more weight on ace because systems need to find the balance among IC, BC and PE. Insurance Correction alone prohibits a counting system from putting more weight on ace. But personally, I always put 50% more weight on ace relative to ten and have great results. On ace super rich decks, the chance of getting Blackjack can overcome even very negative count!
 
#15
you sure?

BJgenius007 said:
If you have ace side count, the best counting system is Advanced Omega II to pair with because you can overweight ace without any side effects. Most counting system put equal or half weight on aces over tens because they don't want to screw up insurance correlation and playing efficiency. But on Betting Correlation criteria alone, ace is 300% more important than ten on increasing your chance to get Blackjack. Of course, because ace is a "small" card in nature, 300% overweight is too much. Based on my simulation results, the perfect weight of ace should be 150% or 133% (Reverse APC) of ten.

Reverse APC is the only major counting system putting more weight on ace because systems need to find the balance among IC, BC and PE. Insurance Correction alone prohibits a counting system from putting more weight on ace. But personally, I always put 50% more weight on ace relative to ten and have great results. On ace super rich decks, the chance of getting Blackjack can overcome even very negative count!
The effect of removal for betting for A & 10 are very similar. I think are even flipped whether h17 or s17 game. For most counts the A is considered for betting.

Unfortunately your personal results are anecdotal.

I have trouble with the notion of weighting As when you need the 10 to make a Bj.

So the A is 0 with your count & you keep A side count for betting? But you put more weight on A? Your doing different then counts creator?
 
Last edited:

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
#16
blackjack avenger said:
The effect of removal for betting for A & 10 are very similar. I think are even flipped whether h17 or s17 game. For most counts the A is considered for betting.

Unfortunately your personal results are anecdotal.

I have trouble with the notion of weighting As when you need the 10 to make a Bj.

So the A is 0 with your count & you keep A side count for betting? But you put more weight on A? Your doing different then counts creator?
For playing, tags for {A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X} = {0,0.5,0.5,1,1,1,0.5,0,-0.5,-1}

For betting, tags for {A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X) = {-1.5,0.5,0.5,1,1,1,0.5,0,-0.5,-1}

Theoretically, -1.5 should be -1.333 like in Reverse APC if we prioritize betting correlation and suppress insurance correlation and playing efficiency.

We do need one ten and one ace to make Blackjack. But the number of aces is only 25% of the number of tens. If the other ingredient of BJ is kept in normal distribution, it takes four extra tens to have the same effect of one extra ace regarding increasing the chance of getting Blackjack.
 
#17
Simpsons already did it

Gordon count, DHME and Tarzan count... all the same bag of beans! All are devised on the same 4 base groupings with the same mathematical principles correlating to one another. It's the most effective counting method known in my opinion.

I started working on it in earnest in the early 80's and it's the only count I've ever used. I developed the count without ever knowing of the existence of Gordon and DHME count until recent years. This being the case, the basis of the groupings is the same, the mathematical basis and aspects are the same, the index play is the same and only the application method differs. It's much like two independent laboratories coming up with two different methods of concocting the same chemical compound for comparison's sake (and then later finding out about the existence of the other lab!).

It was Flash that told me, "The Simpsons already did it!!!" one fine day a few years back after I pulled out the cards and said, "Let me show you something interesting that I do which is my unique system". I did a card-counting demonstration in which I blow through some decks of cards and then tell you what the remaining 1/4 deck or so consists of. I talked about the system at length going into the index play based on considerably more information than a standard "single number line count" as I have always called them and was very surprised to find that he knew about this type of system and how it worked. Apparently a guy named Dr. D.H. Mitchell had also devised a system based on these same card groupings.



It was sort of a sinking feeling to hear that someone already thought of it though. Over the years, I had always thought that I had something unique and more advanced than anything that had been devised before. I've at least added some new tweaks to it.

 
Last edited:

psyduck

Well-Known Member
#18
Tarzan said:
Gordon count, DHME and Tarzan count... all the same bag of beans! All are devised on the same 4 base groupings with the same mathematical principles correlating to one another. It's the most effective counting method known in my opinion.

I started working on it in earnest in the early 80's and it's the only count I've ever used. I developed the count without ever knowing of the existence of Gordon and DHME count until recent years. This being the case, the basis of the groupings is the same, the mathematical basis and aspects are the same, the index play is the same and only the application method differs. It's much like two independent laboratories coming up with two different methods of concocting the same chemical compound for comparison's sake (and then later finding out about the existence of the other lab!).

It was Flash that told me, "The Simpsons already did it!!!" one fine day a few years back after I pulled out the cards and said, "Let me show you something interesting that I do which is my unique system". I did a card-counting demonstration in which I blow through some decks of cards and then tell you what the remaining 1/4 deck or so consists of. I talked about the system at length going into the index play based on considerably more information than a standard "single number line count" as I have always called them and was very surprised to find that he knew about this type of system and how it worked. Apparently a guy named Dr. D.H. Mitchell had also devised a system based on these same card groupings.



It was sort of a sinking feeling to hear that someone already thought of it though. Over the years, I had always thought that I had something unique and more advanced than anything that had been devised before. I've at least added some new tweaks to it.

Tarzan,

I do not doubt how well your system has been working for you, but can you comment on the reason why 6 and 9 are counted in the same group? I have a hard time understanding this concept.
 
#19
one ?

BJgenius007 said:
For playing, tags for {A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X} = {0,0.5,0.5,1,1,1,0.5,0,-0.5,-1}

For betting, tags for {A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X) = {-1.5,0.5,0.5,1,1,1,0.5,0,-0.5,-1}

Theoretically, -1.5 should be -1.333 like in Reverse APC if we prioritize betting correlation and suppress insurance correlation and playing efficiency.

We do need one ten and one ace to make Blackjack. But the number of aces is only 25% of the number of tens. If the other ingredient of BJ is kept in normal distribution, it takes four extra tens to have the same effect of one extra ace regarding increasing the chance of getting Blackjack.
Are you using the count as the creator intended?

In a h17 game the 10 is more valuable then A for betting, but there close.
 
#20
Opposite sides of the fence

psyduck said:
Tarzan,

I do not doubt how well your system has been working for you, but can you comment on the reason why 6 and 9 are counted in the same group? I have a hard time understanding this concept.
This is nothing I can explain in 30 words or less and would really need to sit down with you in person with my 100 or so pages of graphs and charts, some decks of cards, a clipboard, a scientific calculator and a WHOLE lot of time. Guess what... that's not going to happen and it's nothing personal but just a matter of time and trouble.

Clearly the 6's are on the "opposite side of the fence" from 9's but there is a reasoning and basis of it all. I really don't want to talk too much about it on a public message board but you can research it by looking up "DHME", "Gordon count", etc.

I'll send you a PM of a condensed little blurb that may help you... or you may be as bewildered as you were before, I'm not sure. I don't recommend anyone trying to take on this sort of system, don't want to bother with trying to "hawk" or advocate anything, don't want to show off anything and just want to be stay off in the shadows. I've really enjoyed the opportunity to hang with a few other professional players in recent years due to the communications capability achieved by the internet but by the same token understand the need to avoid too much public exposure in any sense of the term.
 
Top