Best system for 6Deck

[FLASH1296]

ZEN Card Counting

You have made a good decision to study ZEN Card Counting.

This is something that you may want to read:

A.pdf article on the Zen Count that is really an addendum to the 2005 edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack giving more precise indices.

(Dead link: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...nt_Indices.htm)

Meanwhile, you really will do well to go to this site created buy Arnold Snyder, the father of the ZEN Count.

You can find everything you need at:

(Dead link: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...y.html#Systems)

 

[standard toaster]

What is Brh-1?

Bret Harris-1?

 

[sneakykid]

can you explain brh-1?

where can i found all the info for all those you listed?

 

[nightspirit]

can you explain brh-1?

where can i found all the info for all those you listed?

here is a good start:
http://www.bjrnet.com/catalog/BRH_history.htm

 

[moo321]

There is no "best" counting system. You can only run numbers on a certain game. For example, if you go from a h17 to S17, the best system may be different. Go from 4.5 to 5 decks pen, and again it changes.

That said, across all sorts of games, Hi-Opt 2 is probably the best system you can learn. It performs very well in all single and double deck games, and is marginally better in shoe games. If you are a professional player, this count may be worth it.

Otherwise, I would tell someone to do something easy. Hi-lo or Red 7.

 

[sneakykid]

There is no "best" counting system. You can only run numbers on a certain game. For example, if you go from a h17 to S17, the best system may be different. Go from 4.5 to 5 decks pen, and again it changes.

That said, across all sorts of games, Hi-Opt 2 is probably the best system you can learn. It performs very well in all single and double deck games, and is marginally better in shoe games. If you are a professional player, this count may be worth it.

Otherwise, I would tell someone to do something easy. Hi-lo or Red 7.

yeah i know the game matters on what system you use

but i wanna know for a 6d, DAS, s17, NS, 75%pen

We dont have SD or DD around here, just 6D

 

[FLASH1296]

zen

 

[sneakykid]

balance or unbalance?

 

[moo321]

balance or unbalance?

Balanced is probably a bit better.

 

[FLASH1296]

Balanced is always preferred.

Yes, moo321 is correct. While balanced ZEN is better than unbalanced ZEN, surprisingly, the difference in performance is pretty modest.

 

[SD Padres]

For shoe games:

Level 1: reKO
Level 2: Zen (Balanced or UB)
Level 3: Uston SS
Level 4: Don't bother

 

[Brett_Harris]

Unbalanced are equivalent to balanced.

Hi People,

It's been a while, after I worked all this stuff out I went onto other things (quantum gravity anyone ;-).

Firstly let me clear up one thing:

There is NO difference between balanced and unbalanced counts !!!

That sounds weird, but its all about finding the best count with the best correlation to the game your are playing.

For shoe games, betting correlation is king, so we want a system with a high BC. But it is not everything, some playing decisions are important in shoes too.

The count with the highest BC (at the level I call 2.5) is USTON SS, followed by Wong Halves, followed by Brh-I.

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
-2 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 SS (unbal) 99.4%
-2 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Halves (bal) 99.2%
-2 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -2 Brh-I (unbal) 98.8%

These systems are all very similar and when I say balanced and unbalanced are equivalent, I mean that ALL of these counts can be used with a true count.

You just figure out the NET unbalance per deck (U=+4) for the systems above. Then you take the number of decks in use (eg 6 decks). If you multiply these together and take the negative you get the initial running count.

IRC = -U * (#decks) = -24

Notice at the beginning of the shoe, by definition, UTC = IRC / (#d) = -U.

So for the SS and Brh-I in six decks, the UTC = -4 at the beginning of the shoe. This corresponds to the count of 0 for a balanced count.

This is true for the entire game:

UTC = RC / (#decks remaining).

All indices are just shifted by the amount -U compared to the closest balanced count (Halves(x2) for Brh-I or SS).

Notice that balanced counts are a special case for which U=0.

So for Brh-I or SS, the IRC = -24 for six decks.

Also notice that when the RC=0, the UTC=0, this is the famous 'pivot' point for unbalanced running count systems. At this point, it does not matter how many cards are left, if the RC=0, the UTC=0 and we know for certain what the % advantage is. For these two counts it is the same as if the TC for Hi-Lo was +2, around +0.5% for typical shoe games. So even if you are bad with division, you always know that you are in the positive, whenever the RC>0, the UTC>0.

By defining an unbalanced true count this way, the same accuracy is achieved for unbalanced and balanced counts. This way, optimal bets may be better placed, and playing decisions are as accurate as any balanced count.

Now for a small plug - the playing decision which is most important is Insurance. Usually it kicks in at HiLo=+3. This corresponds to UTC=+2 for Brh-I and SS. But here's where a strange quirk kicks in. It took me a while to figure this one out, but if the 9 is counted as -1 instead of 0, it will screw up insurance decisions, because we are side-betting on the dealer having a BJ, and this depends on the density of Tens. This is enough to actually overcome the difference in BC between SS and Brh-I, and gives true counted Brh-I the edge over both SS and Wong Halves.

So its been a while - enjoy your lesson ;-)

Brett.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

For six decks: In order of strength

Running
---------
Brh-1
UBZ11
USTON-SS
Brh-0
K-O
Red-7

True
------
Brh-1
UBZ11(unb)
Wong Halves
Zen
Brh-0(unb)
RPC
K-O(true)
Red-7(true)[Brh-0-lite]
Hi-Lo

Non-Ace Reckoned (with Ace-side count)
----------------------------------
Hi-Opt2 (balanced)
Brh-II (unbalanced)
Omega2(bal)

I wouldn't bother with non-ace reckoned in 6 decks, so I would recommend Brh-1 (running or true) if you mainly play shoes, or perhaps UBZ11(running or True) or Zen if you also play a lot of SD and DD.

Brett.

Just maybe one caveat to this: for the better systems, their power is so similar that differences in spread, and to a lesser degree, rules and pen, can cause many of these systems to exchange places in the rankings.

There are many shoe games in the US where we are typically laying spreads of 1-40 or more as well as escaping negative counts, and in this sort of game betting correlation becomes so important that the added playing and insurance benefits of Zen counts are diminished and such counts wouldn't be my choice for shoe play.

The sims I've run on these games and the aggressive way they're typically played, Halves, BRH-1, RPC, and Mentor are indistinguishable in performance to the point where you couldn't expect to see a difference in results over a human lifetime. The only thing measurably better is the mighty HO2+A, but that's a whole different category of count, and if you have the mental agility to sidecount there are more profitable ways to use that agility at the table than counting aces.

 

[k_c]

Hi People,

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
-2 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 SS (unbal) 99.4%
-2 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Halves (bal) 99.2%
-2 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -2 Brh-I (unbal) 98.8%

These systems are all very similar and when I say balanced and unbalanced are equivalent, I mean that ALL of these counts can be used with a true count.

You just figure out the NET unbalance per deck (U=+4) for the systems above. Then you take the number of decks in use (eg 6 decks). If you multiply these together and take the negative you get the initial running count.

IRC = -U * (#decks) = -24

Notice at the beginning of the shoe, by definition, UTC = IRC / (#d) = -U.

Brett.

If IRC is chosen such that running count equals 0 at the end of the shoe when all cards are dealt then any count can be true counted. Otherwise the count has an imbalance and can't be properly true counted.

Glad to see someone explain how to arrive at that IRC :grin: Maybe a distinction should be made between "unbalanced" and "imbalanced."
Unbalanced - Initial running count not equal to 0 when no cards are dealt
Imbalanced - Final running count not equal to 0 when all cards are dealt

 

[callipygian]

Also notice that when the RC=0, the UTC=0, this is the famous 'pivot' point for unbalanced running count systems. At this point, it does not matter how many cards are left, if the RC=0, the UTC=0 and we know for certain what the % advantage is. For these two counts it is the same as if the TC for Hi-Lo was +2, around +0.5% for typical shoe games. So even if you are bad with division, you always know that you are in the positive, whenever the RC>0, the UTC>0.

By defining an unbalanced true count this way, the same accuracy is achieved for unbalanced and balanced counts. This way, optimal bets may be better placed, and playing decisions are as accurate as any balanced count.

Not exactly. At the pivot, the exact TC and advantage can be calculated, but the further the RC is from the pivot, the more inaccurate the RC is. If you try and calculate your advantage at a point far from the pivot, you will get poor correlation.

The trick with an unbalanced count is to pick a pivot which gives the most accuracy when you need the most accuracy (generally between TC +2 and TC +4). So K-O and Red 7 have the highest betting efficiency on bet ramps where the ramp changes most around the pivots. If you took a "high-imbalanced" system such as [3-6 = -1, T-A = +1], your pivot is -4 rather than +4 and the overall betting efficiency plummets because your count becomes inaccurate when you make all your betting decisions.

Aside from the esoteric case where people want to ramp bets at TC -4 , though, BP teams should also carefully consider which unbalanced system is best. For example, if a team wants to call in the BP at TC +4, K-O is going to work better than Red 7 because the count at the K-O pivot is exactly correlated with a TC +4.

This is also why Wonging with an unbalanced count is not trivial; generally, people will have depth-dependent Wong out points with unbalanced counts, because an RC well below the pivot ends up being fairly non-correlative with a particular TC.

 

[sneakykid]

Thanks for the help everyone.

I think i'm going to study zen a level 2 count. level 3 looks kinda hard

Well at least its between 1 and 3 lol

I'm going to start learning to count, then all the indexes which i don't understand it.

 

[zengrifter]

Hi People,

It's been a while, after I worked all this stuff out I went onto other things (quantum gravity anyone ;-).

Firstly let me clear up one thing:

There is NO difference between balanced and unbalanced counts !!!

That sounds weird, but its all about finding the best count with the best correlation to the game your are playing.

For shoe games, betting correlation is king, so we want a system with a high BC. But it is not everything, some playing decisions are important in shoes too.

The count with the highest BC (at the level I call 2.5) is USTON SS, followed by Wong Halves, followed by Brh-I.

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
-2 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 SS (unbal) 99.4%
-2 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 Halves (bal) 99.2%
-2 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -2 Brh-I (unbal) 98.8%

These systems are all very similar and when I say balanced and unbalanced are equivalent, I mean that ALL of these counts can be used with a true count.

You just figure out the NET unbalance per deck (U=+4) for the systems above. Then you take the number of decks in use (eg 6 decks). If you multiply these together and take the negative you get the initial running count.

IRC = -U * (#decks) = -24

Notice at the beginning of the shoe, by definition, UTC = IRC / (#d) = -U.

So for the SS and Brh-I in six decks, the UTC = -4 at the beginning of the shoe. This corresponds to the count of 0 for a balanced count.

This is true for the entire game:

UTC = RC / (#decks remaining).

All indices are just shifted by the amount -U compared to the closest balanced count (Halves(x2) for Brh-I or SS).

Notice that balanced counts are a special case for which U=0.

So for Brh-I or SS, the IRC = -24 for six decks.

Also notice that when the RC=0, the UTC=0, this is the famous 'pivot' point for unbalanced running count systems. At this point, it does not matter how many cards are left, if the RC=0, the UTC=0 and we know for certain what the % advantage is. For these two counts it is the same as if the TC for Hi-Lo was +2, around +0.5% for typical shoe games. So even if you are bad with division, you always know that you are in the positive, whenever the RC>0, the UTC>0.

By defining an unbalanced true count this way, the same accuracy is achieved for unbalanced and balanced counts. This way, optimal bets may be better placed, and playing decisions are as accurate as any balanced count.

Now for a small plug - the playing decision which is most important is Insurance. Usually it kicks in at HiLo=+3. This corresponds to UTC=+2 for Brh-I and SS. But here's where a strange quirk kicks in. It took me a while to figure this one out, but if the 9 is counted as -1 instead of 0, it will screw up insurance decisions, because we are side-betting on the dealer having a BJ, and this depends on the density of Tens. This is enough to actually overcome the difference in BC between SS and Brh-I, and gives true counted Brh-I the edge over both SS and Wong Halves.

So its been a while - enjoy your lesson ;-)

Brett.

Whoooa! Howzit Mate! Its been almost a decade. Welocome to BJINFO aka WBPITTW! zg

 

[zengrifter]

If IRC is chosen such that running count equals 0 at the end of the shoe when all cards are dealt then any count can be true counted. Otherwise the count has an imbalance and can't be properly true counted.

Glad to see someone explain how to arrive at that IRC :grin: Maybe a distinction should be made between "unbalanced" and "imbalanced."
Unbalanced - Initial running count not equal to 0 when no cards are dealt
Imbalanced - Final running count not equal to 0 when all cards are dealt

Could there possibly be a viable scheme based on an imbalanced count? zg

 

[k_c]

Could there possibly be a viable scheme based on an imbalanced count? zg

KO is an example of a count mostly used with an "imbalance." There are others and they work. I think the "imbalanced" approach is used mainly to avoid using too many negative numbers. To me using something other than the actual starting unbalance of a count adds an extra layer of ambiguity, but some people like to use something else. Just for comparison, HiLo could be given an "imbalance" by using an initial running count that is not equal to 0 and then it couldn't be properly true counted but you could still use it with some level of effectiveness. HiLo's starting unbalance just happens to equal 0 per deck whereas KO's equals -4 per deck.

 

[Brett_Harris]

To Callipigian,

When I said there is no difference between unbalanced and balanced count, I was referring to the case when both types of count are true counted. If someone tried to use Hi-Lo in running count mode, they will always know when the deck is positive or negative, but this only tells you that your advantage is greater than -0.5%, so it is pretty much useless for betting - that is unless you find a game with rules such that it is even between you and the house. Maybe if someone offers early surrender in a SD game in Outer Mongolia that would be good. The idea is to construct an unbalanced count such that the pivot is right on the point when the bet should be increased. Red-7 does that, as do all the Brh variants. K-O with the high pivot assures that if you are above the pivot you are in the money, but any count less than that depends on the number of cards dealt. Of course if you can true count it....

Cheers,
Brett.