Hello, and a few questions

[toastcmu]

I have been lurking on the site on and off, but finally have had the time to devote to practicing and learning Hi-Lo. I had a few questions to ask in terms of this count.

1) Any tips on how to get more proficient at maintaining the count when the dealer has Blackjack with an A up? I'm getting better and skimming the table and getting the count, but that's usually when I lose track.

2) Once I've become more proficient, which is more beneficial - wonging out at TC -1 or more, or learning the Illustrious 18 indicies? I assume the wong out is more beneficial, as you don't have the advantage.

Thanks again, I've learned a decent amount just observing so far, hope to continue...

-B

 

[paddywhack]

I have been lurking on the site on and off, but finally have had the time to devote to practicing and learning Hi-Lo. I had a few questions to ask in terms of this count.

1) Any tips on how to get more proficient at maintaining the count when the dealer has Blackjack with an A up? I'm getting better and skimming the table and getting the count, but that's usually when I lose track.

2) Once I've become more proficient, which is more beneficial - wonging out at TC -1 or more, or learning the Illustrious 18 indicies? I assume the wong out is more beneficial, as you don't have the advantage.

Thanks again, I've learned a decent amount just observing so far, hope to continue...

-B

#1 What gets you lost here? Just the delay when insurance is asked for??

#2 Both are beneficial. You have to have these index plays in order to properly play those hands based on the count. And, of course, it's to your advantage not to play in negative counts, although TC-1 can easily revert to TC+1 or greater depending on where you are in the shoe. Practice and experience will be your best indicators of when to wong out depending on the count.

 

[Southpaw]

I have been lurking on the site on and off, but finally have had the time to devote to practicing and learning Hi-Lo. I had a few questions to ask in terms of this count.

1) Any tips on how to get more proficient at maintaining the count when the dealer has Blackjack with an A up? I'm getting better and skimming the table and getting the count, but that's usually when I lose track.

2) Once I've become more proficient, which is more beneficial - wonging out at TC -1 or more, or learning the Illustrious 18 indicies? I assume the wong out is more beneficial, as you don't have the advantage.

Thanks again, I've learned a decent amount just observing so far, hope to continue...

-B

Assuming that you're playing in a shoe game, it is much more beneficial to be able to escape negative counts than it is to know when to depart from basic strategy (I'm quite certain this would also be true for single-deck games, but it is not quite as practical to "take a bathroom break" every time the deck fluxes to a TC of -2). This is especially true when using a system that has a poor playing efficiency as does Hi-Lo. Do not let this discourage you, though, for Hi-Lo is great. Betting correlation is cardinal, whereas playing efficiency is somewhat of a nuance. Because of its high betting correlation and ease of use, Hi-Lo is a great system.

There two things I think a counter shouldn't overlook: (1) The benefits of wonging / backcounting and (2) and the almighty importance of surrender.

These two things allow the counter to increase their return, while simultaneously reducing variance. The significance of this should not be taken lightly.

You should, however, learn indices as well.

Best,
SP

 

[HockeXpert]

Any tips on how to get more proficient at maintaining the count when the dealer has Blackjack with an A up? I'm getting better and skimming the table and getting the count, but that's usually when I lose track.-B

I think what you are trying to say is that when the dealer has bj, she scoops the cards up so quickly that you don't have time to finish counting all the cards on the table.

The answer is to work on counting in pairs. Do not count cards one by one. Often pairs cancel each other out and that makes i very easy to count a full table in a few seconds and that will give you enough time to get the count before the cards are swept away.

A common "trick" is to start counting with the dealers upcard and then work from 1st to 3rd base counting in pairs.

Practice, practice, practice.

 

[toastcmu]

Thanks for the pointers. I am getting more proficient at counting pairs, and realize that's the way to go for my BJ situation.

Unfortunately, I'm on the east coast, so surrender is only available for my trips to Vegas (which are only once a year at the moment). I'm thinking the wonging will be the way to go, will have to work on that.

-B

 

[victorino]

Assuming that you're playing in a shoe game, it is much more beneficial to be able to escape negative counts than it is to know when to depart from basic strategy (I'm quite certain this would also be true for single-deck games, but it is not quite as practical to "take a bathroom break" every time the deck fluxes to a TC of -2). This is especially true when using a system that has a poor playing efficiency as does Hi-Lo.

So, it'd probably be impractical/unwise to hop to a different table when TC<-2 also? (I'm using Hi-Lo as well.)

Also, does the poor playing efficiency of the Hi-Lo count result in higher variance compared to other methods?

Long time lurker, first time poster. Thanks for the help.

v

 

[southAP]

Thanks for the pointers. I am getting more proficient at counting pairs, and realize that's the way to go for my BJ situation.

Unfortunately, I'm on the east coast, so surrender is only available for my trips to Vegas (which are only once a year at the moment). I'm thinking the wonging will be the way to go, will have to work on that.

-B

East coast you can find LS games, in PA thats standard, and I also believe S17 is standard. The problem is finding one within your means of play, so if you're a red chipper you may have to wait unless your bankroll allows you to play a $15 min.

 

[Southpaw]

So, it'd probably be impractical/unwise to hop to a different table when TC<-2 also? (I'm using Hi-Lo as well.)

Also, does the poor playing efficiency of the Hi-Lo count result in higher variance compared to other methods?

Long time lurker, first time poster. Thanks for the help.

v

In single-deck games, it would would be hard to dodge every single true count less than or equal to -2. The count will fluctuate like mad in a single-deck game. I think you'd rarely play a whole deck by playing this strategy. I think that this could draw some serious attention. In shoe games, however, it is much easier--and highly advisable (!)--to dodge negative counts.

Intuitively speaking, I would say that it wouldn't increase variance to a significant degree. In comparison to cover betting strategies, such as many that are outlined in Ian Anderson's Burning the Tables in Las Vegas, the increase in variance arising from poor playing efficiency, I'd wager, makes no comparison. The only time I think that Hi-Lo's low playing efficiency would increase variance is if the count was occasionally misguiding you to make plays that increase variance such as doubling 10 v. 10. By misguiding, I mean that the count was higher than your index, but in actuality it was NOT an advisable play. This can happen, and will happen more often with counts that have lower PE. In summary, though, I highly doubt that Hi-Lo's lower playing efficiency significantly increases variance. I don't study Hi-Lo, very much, for I play Zen.

SP