Choosing a counting system, need some advice

[BrianCP]

Lemme get this out of the way to start, no this isn't me asking which counting method is best like a total noob.

I've been doing a large amount of looking around on the net at the comparisons of the different counting systems (including all the stuff on qfit obviously) and still have a couple of questions I would love to have answered by you experienced counters out there.

I'm looking for a powerful system that is good at shoe games (6 deck generally speaking) in particular. Complexity is not much of an issue (very strong math and memory skills), so don't feel the need to hold back a particular system due to complexity.

Of all the searching I've done on the matter, I think Omega II with a side ace count for the massively increased betting correlation fits my needs and skill set rather well, but I definitely want your input before spending hour after hour practicing when I could've spent that time practicing a system better suited to my needs.

I appreciate all advice, but I would be especially grateful for mildly detailed reasoning explaining your advice if at all possible.

Thank you all so much for your time, assistance, and patience.

 

[jack.jackson]

Lemme get this out of the way to start, no this isn't me asking which counting method is best like a total noob.

I've been doing a large amount of looking around on the net at the comparisons of the different counting systems (including all the stuff on qfit obviously) and still have a couple of questions I would love to have answered by you experienced counters out there.

I'm looking for a powerful system that is good at shoe games (6 deck generally speaking) in particular. Complexity is not much of an issue (very strong math and memory skills), so don't feel the need to hold back a particular system due to complexity.

Of all the searching I've done on the matter, I think Omega II with a side ace count for the massively increased betting correlation fits my needs and skill set rather well, but I definitely want your input before spending hour after hour practicing when I could've spent that time practicing a system better suited to my needs.

I appreciate all advice, but I would be especially grateful for mildly detailed reasoning explaining your advice if at all possible.

Thank you all so much for your time, assistance, and patience.

If you primarily plan on playing MD and want to use something strong, then I suggest a balanced ace-reckoned strategy, such as RPC, Zen or Wong-halves. Strategies that omit the ace, are a real ball-buster for MD.

Can you tell me, what your TC would be for betting, with 3 decks in the discard tray, with only 5 aces played and a RC of -3 would be? This is something that has to be calculated within a few seconds. Futhermore Ho2 is just as powerful(lower RoR and higher Score), and a little easier to use, b/c the nine is omitted and its an 8 point count. Unless you primarily plan on single or Double deck, then i strongly suggest you use an ace-reckoned strategy. Last but not least, its really not about the strategy you implement, but rather good game selection, technique and most importantly how you bet your money.

Good luck!

Oh ya, a couple more things. Mentor is also a good MD system. Or you could try this L3 2223210-1-2-3 which has a BC of .994 and works good in high counts. A02s BC of .989 is assumed perfectly. Realisticly your getting about .980 out of it. With ace-reckoned strategies, you'll get the BCs full potential. Nothing against un-balanced counts i just happen not to be a fan of them.

 

[eandre]

I am not a theorist, and landed on what worked best for my game by learning several systems and perfecting each. You will use a different one for different games/rules and even the level of heat and at times table conditions. I do not think anyone can tell you what will work best for your style, you have to make that decision. Math/memory is not really primary but rather execution and disipline.

 

[21forme]

Most of the pros use HiLo. Take that FWIW.

 

[eandre]

Most of the pros use HiLo. Take that FWIW.

The books do indicate that many pros use HILO but I do not have any real knowledge of any pros. i have played a lifetime and met many HILO players yet i rarely use HILO only because I have not been personally as successful using it.Other systems work better for me and my play as it might for others. Do not stop at 1 counting system...trust me.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Twice the Halves

Lemme get this out of the way to start, no this isn't me asking which counting method is best like a total noob.

I've been doing a large amount of looking around on the net at the comparisons of the different counting systems (including all the stuff on qfit obviously) and still have a couple of questions I would love to have answered by you experienced counters out there.

I'm looking for a powerful system that is good at shoe games (6 deck generally speaking) in particular. Complexity is not much of an issue (very strong math and memory skills), so don't feel the need to hold back a particular system due to complexity.

Of all the searching I've done on the matter, I think Omega II with a side ace count for the massively increased betting correlation fits my needs and skill set rather well, but I definitely want your input before spending hour after hour practicing when I could've spent that time practicing a system better suited to my needs.

I appreciate all advice, but I would be especially grateful for mildly detailed reasoning explaining your advice if at all possible.

Thank you all so much for your time, assistance, and patience.

For playing shoes BC (betting correlation) is very important. The halves count is the best for this. There is almost no error in estimating advantage (Wong). Halves is strongest when one is willing to wong and spread their bets, which is the general tactic for shoe play.

With halves it's important to be able to cancel out with 2 and 3 card combinations. This eliminates much of the halves tag issues.

There is not much to be gained in shoes from an A side count. An A side count is using 2 counts while not getting twice the return. Learning several counts does not give someone several times the return. Multiple counts and side counts is a lot of extra work for diminishing returns.

If you are truly new, probably best to start with hi lo and when/if that gets boring then switch to halves. They are a natural compliment because of similar card tags with many similar indicies.

The standard of being able to count down a deck is 30 seconds without error. I would say when you can do this 10 times in a row without error you have arrived regardless of which count you choose. One can pause to shuffle the deck for each practice run. Start slow; strive for accuracy, speed will come naturally.

I am not biased, not at all
:joker::whip:
good cards

PS
Halves is also great for hand held.

 

[BrianCP]

Based on the detailed replies (thank you guys a bunch) I think I'm going to attempt Wong Halves. Thankfully, professional blackjack is already on its way to my house as we......type I suppose.

Also, not that much of a beginner, just never really settled on choosing a count for my specific conditions until now, so your advice was especially helpful.

 

[zengrifter]

Based on the detailed replies (thank you guys a bunch) I think I'm going to attempt Wong Halves. Thankfully, professional blackjack is already on its way to my house as we......type I suppose.

Also, not that much of a beginner, just never really settled on choosing a count for my specific conditions until now, so your advice was especially helpful.

Remember, with Halves, you can opt to double the indices and the tags and avoid
counting half point tags (ie, 5 = +1.5 becomes +3). Some Halves users prefer that. zg

 

[BrianCP]

Remember, with Halves, you can opt to double the indices and the tags and avoid
counting half point tags (ie, 5 = +1.5 becomes +3). Some Halves users prefer that. zg

I figured that was an option, but the .5's don't really phase me any more than integers to be honest. Thanks for the tip though!

 

[blackjack avenger]

Do Halve of Them Do?

Remember, with Halves, you can opt to double the indices and the tags and avoid
counting half point tags (ie, 5 = +1.5 becomes +3). Some Halves users prefer that. zg

I agree, this can be done. However, it then is not a natural progression from hi lo. The card tags are doubled.

The indicies are doubled and you have to TC by half deck or cut your running count in half and TC by deck. If you cut your rc in half and compute your tc by deck one can use the orginal indicies.

I would think dividing by half deck would get tricky, one has to determine half decks remaining. I would probably consider cutting the RC in half and dividing by deck and using the orginal indicies, but I have no experience either way.

On halves indicies. Use wong's indice values but learn the catch 22 fab 4. If you want to add the remainiang Wong's -1 to +6 indicies, that is fine. I also believe Wong's indicies are 4 deck, which is fine.

I count the halves

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[gamblingghost]

Remember, with Halves, you can opt to double the indices and the tags and avoid
counting half point tags (ie, 5 = +1.5 becomes +3). Some Halves users prefer that. zg

Which would make it the Omega II system so get BJ for Blood if your gonna do that. I don't recommend it though (the five is not weighted properly and the ace is counted as zero!). Plain halves is the way to go. Can you say "and a half" or "point five" in your mind? Yes you can! The running count is half as big which makes it much easier. Are you gonna play shoes?
Count halves.

 

[gamblingghost]

I agree, this can be done. However, it then is not a natural progression from hi lo. The card tags are doubled.

The indicies are doubled and you have to TC by half deck or cut your running count in half and TC by deck. If you cut your rc in half and compute your tc by deck one can use the orginal indicies.

I would think dividing by half deck would get tricky, one has to determine half decks remaining. I would probably consider cutting the RC in half and dividing by deck and using the orginal indicies, but I have no experience either way.

On halves indicies. Use wong's indice values but learn the catch 22 fab 4. If you want to add the remainiang Wong's -1 to +6 indicies, that is fine. I also believe Wong's indicies are 4 deck, which is fine.

I count the halves

:joker::whip:
good cards

Yes the indices are 4 decks but it still works for 6 decks wonderfully.

 

[Renzey]

Based on the detailed replies (thank you guys a bunch) I think I'm going to attempt Wong Halves.

Been using Wong Halves since 1980 and I do double the tags. I also true up to the "count per 2 decks", which ends up quadrupling the indices and bet ramp numbers.
It may sound more complicated, but is actually simpler. Besides that, you get a finer granularity in your true count conversions. Yet another benefit of the 2 deck TC is that late in the shoe, there's very little TC converting. Notice that 4 decks into the shoe, the RC equals the TC. And 4.5 decks in, the TC equals one-and-a-third times the RC. Very straightforward at this critical juncture.

 

[FLASH1296]

ZEN is an excellent choice; especially for shoe games.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Neat

Been using Wong Halves since 1980 and I do double the tags. I also true up to the "count per 2 decks", which ends up quadrupling the indices and bet ramp numbers.
It may sound more complicated, but is actually simpler. Besides that, you get a finer granularity in your true count conversions. Yet another benefit of the 2 deck TC is that late in the shoe, there's very little TC converting. Notice that 4 decks into the shoe, the RC equals the TC. And 4.5 decks in, the TC equals one-and-a-third times the RC. Very straightforward at this critical juncture.

This is pretty cool. Especially if one has sloppy bet ramps due to camo, makes things easier. I would think one is giving up some SCORE for simplicity. Also, this is a completely different count then hi lo and it would not be a natural progression from hi lo. Your form of doubled halves can probably be a natural progression in complexity from another count with similar tags but perhaps unbalanced. So one can go from unbalanced to easy 2 deck balanced.

good cards
:joker::whip:

 

[blackjack avenger]

To Late

ZEN is an excellent choice; especially for shoe games.

Zen is a good count, very good
but
He is a halver now

our legion grows!
from 3 to 4

good cards
:joker::whip:

 

[FLASH1296]

I understand what "granularity" is, but perhaps I don't, as I fail to see
how 2 deck divisors in T.C. computation improves granularity.

 

[Renzey]

I understand what "granularity" is, but perhaps I don't, as I fail to see
how 2 deck divisors in T.C. computation improves granularity.

Example:
Some Hi/Lo system sources advise using +3 TC as the index count for doubling with 8 vs. 5, for doubling with 9 vs. 7, for standing with 12 vs. 2, or for doubling with A/8 vs. 4 -- and some others suggest +4 TC instead. The differences often have to do with whether they've rounded, floored or truncated.
More accurately speaking, a better number for these plays is +3.5 TC. So you double all your indices which changes that index number to +7 TC, and proceed to true up your count to the number of double decks remaining.

Now let's say that 3.5 decks into a 6 deck shoe, the Hi/Lo RC is +9. With the standard "count-per-deck" method, you'd divide 9, on the fly by 2.5 remaining decks. If you're a very precise guy, you'd get +3.6 TC, and if you're a mere mortal, you'd deem that it's somewhere in the mid +3's. What to do with any of those four hands?? Hit? Double? Stand?

With the "count-per 2 decks" method, you'd multiply your +9 RC by .8, which is your constant multiplier for when there are 3.5 decks in the discard tray. That gives you a TC that is clearly just over the required +7, and you pull the trigger on the index play.

Now, you could accomplish the same thing with the standard count-per-deck method, but many of your index numbers would have to be on the half point, and your multipiers would all be half size. That is, the index number would remain at +3.5 TC, and your multiplier right there would be .4 (since .4 is the reciprocal of 2.5). With that however, you would not have the luxury of being able to size your bets and play your indices directly according to the RC around the 4 dealt deck level -- a considerable plus IMO.

 

[FLASH1296]

I see what you are saying. However, I have no problems with fractions as I "floor" my T.C.'s
for all purposes, and I find that ultra-simple to do. Also, none of us know the precisely correct
fractional index. A +3 could be +3.5, (as per your example), but it could easily be +2.6 0r +3.1.

I remain (conditionally*) unconvinced; but with the stipulation that I
only had two grad courses in Stat' and maybe I was asleep when …

* The condition being that I admit that I am probably wrong, as mine is a voice alone.

Anyone can win or lose, but those whose play is efficacious, merit credit for good news, and find the adverse less vexatious.

 

[FLASH1296]

Mod,

Duplicate accidental posting.

Please delete me.