Introducing the Ben Franklin Count

Hi everybody here's a balanced level 2 system I've written up for use in shoe games, based on the old Revere Point Count. I call it the Ben Franklin count because all playing indices are rounded to 5, 10, or 0. This makes it a lot easier both to remember the indices, and to make a quick true count calculation for playing decisions. E.g., if the RC is +27 and there are 3.5 decks left, it might take you additional seconds to figure out the true count but you can tell right away it's less than +10 and more than +5. Using this system should earn you 5-10% more than High-Low, with minimal additional difficulty.

This is still a work in progress so let me know if there is anything to be added/subtracted/changed. Thanks to Ken for posting it on his site and to the people who have already looked it over for me.

Here's the link:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/Ben-Franklin-Count.pdf

Thanks for posting. How has the reactions been?

must say AM nice job with the system and the way you presented it. Will save the info and think about using it when i am ready to step up. very easy to understand, thanks.

Well the people who have seen it seem to like it. I'm waiting to hear from players who try to learn it and use it at the table, to see how it compares to High-Low and KO in ease of use.

This looks good. Its almost identical to GeoC's Rounded Zen, which he uses. zg

RPC count per half deck.

Automatic M., or does anyone have a set of rounded RPC indices using half deck TC conversion instead of whole deck conversion?

The system looks good, solid BC with the RPC, and strategy variation being simplified should free up time to think of other opportunities available while playing shoes.

If the Monk converted the TC/ 1/2 deck then it would no longer be simplified as was his basic intent, instead you would be going from "Nickel & Dime" to Shillings, Farthings and Pence.
BTW, has anyone got to use it yet? It sounds easy to convert to for all you "shoe sailors".
After looking it over, the only thing that's puzzling to me is that he left out Reno rules in his comparisons, while at the same time posted those from Gopher Gizzard Minn.:laugh:
And finally, hats off to The Monk. Your rendition has indeed demonstrated an example of the caliber of many of the forum members here! (That line should definitely get me a free advanced copy).

I would be inclined to compromise with -9 -6 -3 0 +3 +6 +9, etc. zg

Reference?

Zg, Do these tags(based on 3's) refer to 1/2 deck TC? And, if so, how would they correlate to Monk's 3 stage indices?

No, I was thinking 1D - 1/2D is somewhat inferior, for beting at least. My compromise would be 4-stage (0-3-6-9). zg

Hi AM - I guess my first impression is wondering why you compare a level 2 count system to a level 1 system. I would assume most of that 5-10% better is due to that rather than rounding indices.

I guess I'd be more curious as to how much extra you lose, within the count system you propose, compared to the same if you used the actual positive index numbers rather than rounded ones. I guess there aren't any negative ones unless maybe you're rounding a -TC2.4 to +TC2.4 to 0.

Also I'm not sure if I get a TC+4 if I should go to 0 or 5 in your tables.

If I'm a Hi-Lo player, it would seem maybe most of the work would be learning the different tags to the cards.

Absolutely, all of the benefit is due to going to level 2. The only purpose of the rounding is to make the indices easy to remember and easy to use at the table. If the RC is more than half of 10 times the number of decks, you would take insurance, and for most people this kind of calculation is easier than actually doing the division when the dealer is asking for insurance.

You don't gain very much with exact index numbers, maybe a percent or so. When a risk-averse index didn't fall very close to 0, 5 or 10, I ran comparative sims with the index set at two different possibilities to see which worked better. If it didn't make a significant difference, I chose the one which involved putting less money on the table, or the one that involved consuming fewer cards in a positive count, or the one that would make the S17 index the same as the H17 one.


It's done in the standard protocol for index tables, which is you deviate from Basic Strategy if the true count is above the index number. So at TC=+4 you would play the 0 numbers.

Yes, that would be the only more difficult part, and in fact using the level 2 system tags is probably insurmountable to some people. But others will find it easy. As a tradeoff to that added work, you get rounded indices and a simplified strategy table tailored to shoe games where you Wong out, which is what most people play and how they play it these days. I didn't know about George C.'s Rounded Zen until ZG mentioned it, but I think that would be a better system for DD games because it gives you better playing and insurance numbers, and has some negative index numbers which are useful in DD because you are usually playing all hands.

So the purpose of my count was to give players one more option, particularly players who would be put off by doing division and learning a complicated set of index numbers.

Well it's interesting but, personally, if I was going to learn a level 2 count, and I agree with you it's not that hard to do, I would probably want to learn a few + index numbers.

That being said, if someone is going to Wong in at +1 or +2, he already knows the TC for betting purposes so why would he be worrying whether the running count is more than half the decks remaining divided by 10? He would just have to truncate it to 0 5 or 10. He's already done the division, the "hard part".

So I guess I'm saying, and I think u r too, all it saves is memorizing a few index numbers. He still has to remember the play and whether it's 0 5 or 10 so he might as well, while he's at it, learn a different number.

I'd change your descriptions to read "Stand, etc if TC is equal or >" rather than just >. Maybe, anyway. Except, for your 1-20 play-all, wouldn't logically a TC-4 truncate to zero and therefore I might be standing on alot of hands I would otherwise hit?

Anyway, I think it's cool u do this stuff.