Are more accurate counts really worth it?

C

Chezzmo

New Member
#1
#1
I've been recently training some of my friends with the "Revere RAPC" technique, but I was wondering if it's really needed.

The basic Hi-lo count has a betting correlation of .97, while the Revere has 1.00. It seems that Revere, if you can do it, will get you more accurate bets. Some of my players can't do the Revere though, and are sticking with the Hi-lo count.

So out of your experiences, is learning/teaching the Revere RACP, better than Hi-lo, or is it just not worth the effort?
 
Last edited:
U

Unshake

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
If this is the first count people are learning, a level 2 count may be difficult. I'm pretty sure RACP is one of the best count for most shoe games, however if you are planning to play double/single deck this may be a waste of time. It might not be a bad idea to sim your game using both Hi-lo and RACP and see if the difference in SCORE increases enough to justify learning it.
 
moo321

moo321

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
They're totally worthless compared to using more indices. If you use full indices on both, and play either a very deeply dealt shoe game, or single or double deck, advanced counts can help some. But, I'd recommend you spend your time learning a simple count like Hi-Lo, and spending the extra time you saved learning more indices.
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
Chezzmo said:
I've been recently training some of my friends with the "Revere RACP" technique, but I was wondering if it's really needed.

The basic Hi-lo count has a betting correlation of .97, while the Revere has 1.00. It seems that Revere, if you can do it, will get you more accurate bets. Some of my players can't do the Revere though, and are sticking with the Hi-lo count.

So out of your experiences, is learning/teaching the Revere RACP, better than Hi-lo, or is it just not worth the effort?
Click to expand...
I assume you mean RAPC (Revere Advanced Point Count) which is Revere's level IV count and is extremely difficult to master and is really not worth all the extra effort. The RPC (Revere Point Count), however is a pretty powerful level II count and can be used for both pitch and shoe games effectively.
 
Last edited:
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
Chezzmo said:
I've been recently training some of my friends with the "Revere RACP" technique, but I was wondering if it's really needed.

The basic Hi-lo count has a betting correlation of .97, while the Revere has 1.00. It seems that Revere, if you can do it, will get you more accurate bets. Some of my players can't do the Revere though, and are sticking with the Hi-lo count.

So out of your experiences, is learning/teaching the Revere RACP, better than Hi-lo, or is it just not worth the effort?
Click to expand...
The RAPC, L4, 17 point count, has a BC of .997. Its the most accurate count for betting purposes. However, unless you plan on wongin in and out with it, it probably wont do as good as hi-lo and wongin. Not to mention all the work.

Despite the L4, and the .997 BC, their are still stronger counts. Unless secondarys were added:

1. 2334320-1-3-4/A+4 vs ,3,4,5,6-1=2223220-1-3,0(VAPC, for .68,PE)

or

2.2223220-1-3/A-4 vs ,3,4,5,6+1=2334320-1-3-4(RAPC, for BC)

And unless you were very good, it would probably take 2 people. Even if you were able to pull it off Solo, and unless you were wongin it still wouldnt outperform basic hi-lo w/ wongin.

If interested. A good wong-count: 2223210-1-2-3 Has a BC of .994 and has the best efficiency for those positive aggressive plays such as splitting XXs, Doubling on 8,9vs8,7,XvsX,A, A8,A9
 
Last edited:
D

duffytoo

Member
#6
#6
Chezzmo:

I use the Uston APC, a 5 level count. It was, as I have mentioned previously, very difficult to keep an accurate count. It wasn't difficult for me to learn but I must honestly say that I don't think it's much more effective than a simple HI/Lo.

It's just ingrained in my mind now, so I continue to use the more difficult system.

I think it's much more important to keep an accurate true count than to keep a more detailed acount. Simplier is better.
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
duffytoo said:
Chezzmo:

I use the Uston APC, a 5 level count. It was, as I have mentioned previously, very difficult to keep an accurate count. It wasn't difficult for me to learn but I must honestly say that I don't think it's much more effective than a simple HI/Lo.

It's just ingrained in my mind now, so I continue to use the more difficult system.

I think it's much more important to keep an accurate true count than to keep a more detailed acount. Simplier is better.
Click to expand...
Ive never heard of the UAPC, L5? I thought his APC was a L3. Could you post the tags?
 
S

Stylee

Active Member
#8
#8
People are mentioning betting correlation but in Revere's book he says with the advanced system you don't need to vary your bets. Am i misreading something? I only have Playing BJ as a business not the actual strategy so I am hopefully mistaken. But to say a 3.2% advantage can be attained without varying bet sizes seems like a bunch of voodoo to me. But like I said, hopefully I'm misreading it.
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
Yes and no

Stylee said:
People are mentioning betting correlation but in Revere's book he says with the advanced system you don't need to vary your bets. Am i misreading something? I only have Playing BJ as a business not the actual strategy so I am hopefully mistaken. But to say a 3.2% advantage can be attained without varying bet sizes seems like a bunch of voodoo to me. But like I said, hopefully I'm misreading it.
Click to expand...
The mathematical observations/ conclusions that Revere uses in his book, although theoretically accurate, are "laboratory" conditions using a s17, SD with 90%+ penetration, none of which exist any more in the real world.
 
S

Stylee

Active Member
#11
#11
Even with those conditions, the point of counting is to know when to raise or lower your bets. How can you gain an advantage by just knowing what the next cards will likely be but not acting on that information?
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
#12
#12
Just for the Record

Revere had TWO RAPCs, that im aware of.

1. "71" version (2334320-1-3-4)


2. "73" version (2234210-2-3)(-4+)

I believe #2 is the one ZG, use to use.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#13
#13
Chezzmo said:
I've been recently training some of my friends with the "Revere RAPC" technique, but I was wondering if it's really needed.
Click to expand...
The RAPC is OBSOLETE. It was OBSOLETE even before Revere died in '79.* zg

*See Zengrifter Interview.
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
#14
#14
Stylee said:
Even with those conditions, the point of counting is to know when to raise or lower your bets. How can you gain an advantage by just knowing what the next cards will likely be but not acting on that information?
Click to expand...
The point of counting today does rely heavily on bet spread in order to overcome the other obstacles the casinos have imposed upon the game of blackjack, such as multiple decks, shorter pen, H17 etc. Although these are today's conditions they were not yet prevalent in Revere's world and so the index play,coupled with his multi level count, in and of itself was extremely important. Enough to provide most of the EV in the games of the day.The classic s17, SD,deep pen game that he refers to was ~0.00% just using proper BS, so any positive variation in playing decisions would boost EV tremendously.
At the point of time Revere has developed his RAPC, his main objective was to eliminate, as much as possible, any conspicuous bet spread since that was the only thing the houses at that time were focused on to identify counters and thus, the RAPC was developed, probably for his own self preservation as much any other reason.
Yes, one could and should use a wider spread in today's games in order to maximize EV and theoretically a 1:4 spread using RAPC in a good SD game would be the best of both worlds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top