Recent content by boneuphtoner

Swindler, Looks pretty good! For one single concise table, this is nice. Although I'm more used to seeing several tables like what QFIT did to describe his excellent FELT count: http://qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage90.htm

Not a fair comparison. With level 2 FELT, -4 is about the same as -2 HiLo. So my interpretation is you are sitting out more negative rounds with the higher level strategy

Yes, it does technically work...see my post in this thread. http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=22624&highlight=score Whether it is worth it as compared to KO Rookie remains to be seen.

I ran into a situation at the tables recently that I have never seen before. Meaning that I didn't know what takes priority when it comes to basic strategy versus making an index play. I was dealt 4,4 versus a dealer's 5 (DAS game). The true count was high enough to warrant doubling an 8...

Why don't more people use this? I know the BC isn't super high (it is like .80), but we're talking PERFECT insurance here. That has to be worth something.

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.

Any recent updates? I just got a CBJN and the most recent report for Tunica is January 2011...:mad::mad::mad: According to this document, multiple shops have true legitimate single deck paying 3-2. Is this true? How about the double deck games?

So, I bought the Blackjack Institute's manual and training DVD. What surprised me was that many of the indices included fractional numbers. For example, 12 versus 3, stand at +1.5! How many of you guys play this way?

He didn't provide any SCORE data to back up this claim, but a very noted Blackjack researcher, Cacarulo, on advantageplayer.com stated that level 2 Zen is actually stronger than Halves. http://advantageplayer.com/blackjack/index.html See his post 10/22/03

I ran KO Rookie with CVCX 8 Decks 75% penetration DAS RSA, and I confirm that a 1-5 spread definitely puts you on the positive side of the long run, with a SCORE of 2.17. I started a thread a couple of years ago that the spreads listed in most blackjack books are needlessly too high for...

This count will definitely with reduce the house edge and put you on the positiive side of the long term....no quesiton about it....a simple 1-8 spread at a 6 decker produces positive SCOREs across all the standard penetrations in CVCX. They are very low SCORES, but it is on the positive side...

Cool! Do you have these adjustments available? Also, I would assume this would also work for FELT (modernized RPC using count per deck).

This is a great discussion! Here is another issue regarding errors and level I, level II to discuss. And this issue was brought up by Bryce Carlson in BJ for Blood. His point was that errors happen no matter what, but it seems to actually matter LESS in level II systems. Why? To...

Which version of Zen was used for this comparison? I ask this as the true edge version of Zen is known to be significantly weaker than the original version. According to the canned CVCX sims, true edge Zen is indeed weaker than HiLo. Traditional Zen, using count-per-deck, is much stronger...

Please show us that data. Check out QFIT's Modern Blackjack Volume 2. In this masterpiece, there are literally hundreds of pages of data and charts comparing FELT (rounded reduced RPC using count per whole deck), HiLo, and REKO. I don't recall any of the data in this very comprehensive...