J.Noir Count

[metronome]

Any one know about this. I've never seen it. Is it known by another name ?
Probably a basic level two count ??

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2

BC = .89 PE = .49

 

[LIB]

I've never heard of it, and for a good reason. If you were just musing, ignore the next part. I don't mean to patronize you. If you weren't this is my two cent.

Even with the tag value of -2, it's still weaker than Hi-Lo. Not assigning neutral tag and assigning 5 and 6 as the same as all the other + cards makes assessment blurry not to mention compromised PE; PE is even less than .50. I haven't ran the numbers, but I would imagine that this count system would be reasonably reliable in recognizing situations to avoid whereas it would not be in recognizing opportunities. Consequently, this system is a moot for those who are not wonging out. Insurance correlation may be high, but considering the frequency, the whole system seems like either a prototype or a futile effort. I fail to notice any competitive advantage this system has over any other widely used systems in any way what-so-ever including but not limited to the ease of use. Personally, I wouldn't feel so dandy if I allowed my name to be associated with something like this.

 

[Tenafly]

Jacques Noir published his book Casino Holiday in 1968,It included the ten count among others which he called the one-two count.Book is a collectors item.

 

[metronome]

Yes, musing, I've run no analyticals of any sort on this. The book is a classic ?...and out of print no doubt.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I've never heard of it, and for a good reason. If you were just musing, ignore the next part. I don't mean to patronize you. If you weren't this is my two cent.

Even with the tag value of -2, it's still weaker than Hi-Lo. Not assigning neutral tag and assigning 5 and 6 as the same as all the other + cards makes assessment blurry not to mention compromised PE; PE is even less than .50. I haven't ran the numbers, but I would imagine that this count system would be reasonably reliable in recognizing situations to avoid whereas it would not be in recognizing opportunities. Consequently, this system is a moot for those who are not wonging out. Insurance correlation may be high, but considering the frequency, the whole system seems like either a prototype or a futile effort. I fail to notice any competitive advantage this system has over any other widely used systems in any way what-so-ever including but not limited to the ease of use. Personally, I wouldn't feel so dandy if I allowed my name to be associated with something like this.

I agree, it's also heavily unbalanced and it's not clear how that is compensated for.