keeping it simple

[Coyote]

Obviously in hindsight this discussion was a bad idea. You guys aren't going to change my mind that I should consider going back to a higher level count for a 5-10% adavantage that shows up in simulations, but I don't beleive fully translated into real play. I play a simple count that while I am not fool enough to believe I play perfectly, being a human being, I know I play it pretty damn efficently. It identified a large majority of the advantagous situations and meshes well with my style of play and leaves me free to attempt a few other manuevers.

At the same time, I apparently can't convince you of the benefits of simplicity and that anything other than a level 1 count and a few dozen indices is just overkill and not necessary or beneficial to the majority of players and members of this site. But I must say, it saddens me, when you guys that are proponents of this convince some recreational player who already is proficient with a level one count to abandon it in favor of re-learning a higher level count, which is not going to benefit them all that much. Apparently this just happened and probably happens after each of these discussions. It really is a disservice that you are doing. :sad:

I was playing with the idea of switching to a higher level count, but after taking a hard look at my current life style and the demands of my time, I have decided to stick with my current level 1 count with approximately 20 indices.

I am not a pro by any means, but Blackjack has become a passion and a serious hobby for me. If and when I do have more time to devote to the game, I may revisit this debate.

KJ, your thread has provoked a good discussion that I feel is worthy of this forum. As for the new APs looking to switch to a higher level, time may bring them back around to the Level 1s. Either way, the wise ones will gleen from this information what they need to be successfull.

Best of variance to you all!

Coyote

 

[revrac]

Coyote

I was playing with the idea of switching to a higher level count, but after taking a hard look at my current life style and the demands of my time, I have decided to stick with my current level 1 count with approximately 20 indices.

I am not a pro by any means, but Blackjack has become a passion and a serious hobby for me. If and when I do have more time to devote to the game, I may revisit this debate.

KJ, your thread has provoked a good discussion that I feel is worthy of this forum. As for the new APs looking to switch to a higher level, time may bring them back around to the Level 1s. Either way, the wise ones will gleen from this information what they need to be successfull.

Best of variance to you all!

Coyote

From your other post i take it your using KO preferred and that you want a higher expected value but not really wanting to do a huge overhaul at the moment. I think you would be very happy with looking into a form of TKO, if you've mastered KO then switching to TKO is quite simple. You will gain an extra 5% on average (depending on penetration) from just changing your key counts to be a moving key count depending on number of decks played. You can gain another couple percent gain by having moving index points as well. You don't have to do the true count conversion at the table, you have this all done ahead of time and you just have a few numbers memorized. I at one point moved from preferred to full to TKO and was very pleased with the results. You would definitely notice the difference with not much work required.

How hard is it to remember that on a 6 deck game instead of a key count of -4 you have a key count of -11 with 1 deck seen, -8 with 2 decks seen, -5, -2 and 1 with 5 decks seen. It moves by 3 each deck played, very simple and worth the effort to know your not underbetting or overbetting.

 

[Friendo]

Never forget

I'd be very surprised if higher-level counts make more money each year than level-1 counts. This is probably due to team use, or to truly high-volume counters using them, but it leaves no doubt: level-1 counts get the money just fine.

I'd use High-Low, but I like the 2-deck true count of Mentor too much to leave. A simpler count might help with the fatigue problem I tend to face between hours 5 and 6 at the tables, but that could just be blood sugar, and the sound of those frickin' slot machines: "Dee-dee-dee-DEEEEH! Deedley-deedley deee! Ding ding dee-ding-ding-DING!" Auuugh! And my biggest problem is remembering the count during bet payoffs, when a simpler count wouldn't help.

I believe that most pit bosses and dealers don't care at all about the casino's bottom line; indeed, they probably don't care about much of anything but the paycheck and not being humiliated or embarrased by management. Any player dropping by for 45 minutes on your shift is unlikely to be detected by surveillance or upper management: why expend any effort to save a few bucks for your firm, when there is little threat to your career and backoffs are a stressful confrontation? A $300 top bettor staying for 45 minutes will cost the casino $45, and will cost the pit boss nothing.

 

[Coyote]

From your other post i take it your using KO preferred and that you want a higher expected value but not really wanting to do a huge overhaul at the moment. I think you would be very happy with looking into a form of TKO, if you've mastered KO then switching to TKO is quite simple. You will gain an extra 5% on average (depending on penetration) from just changing your key counts to be a moving key count depending on number of decks played. You can gain another couple percent gain by having moving index points as well. You don't have to do the true count conversion at the table, you have this all done ahead of time and you just have a few numbers memorized. I at one point moved from preferred to full to TKO and was very pleased with the results. You would definitely notice the difference with not much work required.

How hard is it to remember that on a 6 deck game instead of a key count of -4 you have a key count of -11 with 1 deck seen, -8 with 2 decks seen, -5, -2 and 1 with 5 decks seen. It moves by 3 each deck played, very simple and worth the effort to know your not underbetting or overbetting.

Hey revrac! Now that sounds like something I could find time for! I am using modified KO. Your right, if I can work out the moving key count prior to hitting the tables it shouldn't be that bad. Thanks for the inspiration and I'll pick up a copy of the book.

Regards,
Coyote

 

[zengrifter]

From your other post i take it your using KO preferred and that you want a higher expected value but not really wanting to do a huge overhaul at the moment. I think you would be very happy with looking into a form of TKO, if you've mastered KO then switching to TKO is quite simple.

Just to add - TKO trumps HiLo.
The same learning curve logic applied to R7 would go R7 to TR7 to TR7 counting all 7s .5 (level-2), thus R7 (or KISS3) are the only count where one can advance fully to level-2 (with or without TC) WITHOUT learning a new count. zg

 

[Coyote]

Just to add - TKO trumps HiLo.
The same learning curve logic applied to R7 would go R7 to TR7 to TR7 counting all 7s .5 (level-2), thus R7 (or KISS3) are the only count where one can advance fully to level-2 (with or without TC) WITHOUT learning a new count. zg

Can you explain this a little further?

 

[blackjack avenger]

Simple is as Simple Does

typical bj game found around the country:
61h7 das 1.5 cut

3 SD (N0 * 9) for fixed bets:
hi lo ill 18 = 186,129 hands
halves ill 18 = 181,638 hands
The difference is 4,491 hands or 44.91 hours of playing.

3 SD (NO * 36) for continuous kelly resizing bets:
hi lo ill 18 744,516 hands
halves ill 18 726,552 hands
The difference is 17,964 hands or 179.64 hours of playing.

If you resize you bank at all on wins and losses your long run numbers are much closer to continuous kelly resizing.

If trying to win a fixed amount or as much as possible:
Fewer trips to the casino
Less opportunity to be evaluated by the casino
Less trip expenses
More $ per hour
:cool2:

If one can use a higher level count easily then why not?

 

[Bojack1]

When you learn anything new it seems hard at first. With enough practice anything becomes second nature. Humans always make mistakes. The very gifted athlete or thinker continued to push the envelope so his limitations make the lazier compandre who felt his expertise was good enough look like a person not gifted at their pursuit. This may be the case but it is more often the product of complacency than ability.

I agree with this line of thinking. That is why in my opinion in the world of AP, counting, regardless of which level used, is the epitome of complacency. Arguing over such tiny advantages between counting levels measured by numbers to the right of the decimal seems quite silly to me. Counting is fast becoming a less viable method of AP method in this day and age. Of course it can still be used and you will still be able to technically call yourself an AP. You can also still ride in a horse and buggy and call it a means of transportation too.

 

[Severity8]

Sh*t we're Amish. Bojack to have a glimpse of how your mind calculates and your experience and experiences would be amazing.

 

[kewljason]

I agree with this line of thinking. That is why in my opinion in the world of AP, counting, regardless of which level used, is the epitome of complacency. Arguing over such tiny advantages between counting levels measured by numbers to the right of the decimal seems quite silly to me. Counting is fast becoming a less viable method of AP method in this day and age. Of course it can still be used and you will still be able to technically call yourself an AP. You can also still ride in a horse and buggy and call it a means of transportation too.

Ouch Mr Bo. That seems a little harsh.

Is a fishman who has supported himself for 35 years while owning the same small boat and outdated equipment, no longer a fisherman because he hasn't updated to latest modern equipment and techniques which could make him more profit? Is a small family farmer making a living of the land much as his father did and his father's father before him, no longer a farmer because there are more modern and efficent ways to do so?

As a lowly CC, I knew this wasn't the road to riches that it once was when I enbarked on this journey. I earn a modest living off the casinos, playing blackjack, mostly by counting. I am not getting rich doing so, but it is a very comfortable living for me, superior to where I was when I started or where I would be had I not taken this route. In my mind that alone makes me an AP, but no matter. Titles aren't important to me. You can call me a lowly CC, rather than an AP or just lucky SoB, which many of my friends and family still call me...lol. I am happy with where I am at.

I have done just a bit of HC ing in the last 6 months. I was steered that way by a member that I network with on the other site. I am sure my efforts were very crude by your standards, but they were enough for me to realize that having that additional information just a small fraction of the time equates to a much larger advantage. However, I quickly decided I wasn't all that comfortable applying that particular technique, so I don't pursue it. If it falls in my lap, I will take advantage of the opportunity, but I don't seek it out in anyway. Just me. But it's interesting. I supposes if I did concentrate more on that aspect of play, I might qualify as an AP by your definition.

 

[Bojack1]

Ouch Mr Bo. That seems a little harsh.

Is a fishman who has supported himself for 35 years while owning the same small boat and outdated equipment, no longer a fisherman because he hasn't updated to latest modern equipment and techniques which could make him more profit? Is a small family farmer making a living of the land much as his father did and his father's father before him, no longer a farmer because there are more modern and efficent ways to do so?

As a lowly CC, I knew this wasn't the road to riches that it once was when I enbarked on this journey. I earn a modest living off the casinos, playing blackjack, mostly by counting. I am not getting rich doing so, but it is a very comfortable living for me, superior to where I was when I started or where I would be had I not taken this route. In my mind that alone makes me an AP, but no matter. Titles aren't important to me. You can call me a lowly CC, rather than an AP or just lucky SoB, which many of my friends and family still call me...lol. I am happy with where I am at.

I have done just a bit of HC ing in the last 6 months. I was steered that way by a member that I network with on the other site. I am sure my efforts were very crude by your standards, but they were enough for me to realize that having that additional information just a small fraction of the time equates to a much larger advantage. However, I quickly decided I wasn't all that comfortable applying that particular technique, so I don't pursue it. If it falls in my lap, I will take advantage of the opportunity, but I don't seek it out in anyway. Just me. But it's interesting. I supposes if I did concentrate more on that aspect of play, I might qualify as an AP by your definition.

Please KJ, point out the quote in my post where I say that a counter is not an AP. In my OPINION it is not the most efficient way to get the advantage, and it is becoming an increasingly obtuse method, but I did not say counting does not make you an AP. Antiquitated fishermen and farmers are still fisherman and farmers, no doubt, that was never my point.

I also don't mean to imply that just HCing is the way for larger advantages. Of course when done right it sure can be, but there are a world of opportunities out there for those willing to observe, learn, and make the most of what they can. Everyone is different, I do not judge who is greater by what a person may want out of life. I will however, point out the contradiction of those in the AP community that choose to downgrade fellow counters for using lower level counts, when they themselves fall short in maximizing their own capacity to garner much greater and noticeable advantages themselves. Advantages thats differences can be measured on the left side of the decimal.

If you are happy where you're at and what you're doing KJ, then thats all that should matter. Just don't put words in my mouth. My advice though is this, the game is evolving, adapting to the evolution is paramount.

 

[Nynefingers]

3 SD (N0 * 9) for fixed bets:
hi lo ill 18 = 186,129 hands
halves ill 18 = 181,638 hands
The difference is 4,491 hands or 44.91 hours of playing.

3 SD (NO * 36) for continuous kelly resizing bets:
hi lo ill 18 744,516 hands
halves ill 18 726,552 hands
The difference is 17,964 hands or 179.64 hours of playing.

If you resize you bank at all on wins and losses your long run numbers are much closer to continuous kelly resizing.

If trying to win a fixed amount or as much as possible:
Fewer trips to the casino
Less opportunity to be evaluated by the casino
Less trip expenses
More $ per hour
:cool2:

Are you arguing that halves is better because it requires 179.64 fewer hours to achieve the same level of certainty about whether you will be ahead? If so, I'd point out that you may save 179.64 hours, but it seems less significant when you realize that you are comparing between 7,265.52 hours and 7,445.16 hours. It's about 2.5% difference. For someone who plays 500 hours in a year, that's a difference of 12.5 hours, assuming no errors.

 

[Craps Master]

As a lowly CC, I knew this wasn't the road to riches that it once was when I enbarked on this journey. I earn a modest living off the casinos, playing blackjack, mostly by counting. I am not getting rich doing so, but it is a very comfortable living for me, superior to where I was when I started or where I would be had I not taken this route.

For now. But, you may want to develop some new skills, what with conditions being what they were, what they are, and what they will be. Your analogy about fisherman was touching and all, but what about the lamplighters, telegraph operators, and pinsetters? I'm assuming they developed some new skills.

 

[Tarzan]

BB guns vs. Godzilla

I'd be very surprised if higher-level counts make more money each year than level-1 counts. This is probably due to team use, or to truly high-volume counters using them, but it leaves no doubt: level-1 counts get the money just fine.

I'd use High-Low, but I like the 2-deck true count of Mentor too much to leave. A simpler count might help with the fatigue problem I tend to face between hours 5 and 6 at the tables, but that could just be blood sugar, and the sound of those frickin' slot machines: "Dee-dee-dee-DEEEEH! Deedley-deedley deee! Ding ding dee-ding-ding-DING!" Auuugh! And my biggest problem is remembering the count during bet payoffs, when a simpler count wouldn't help.

I believe that most pit bosses and dealers don't care at all about the casino's bottom line; indeed, they probably don't care about much of anything but the paycheck and not being humiliated or embarrased by management. Any player dropping by for 45 minutes on your shift is unlikely to be detected by surveillance or upper management: why expend any effort to save a few bucks for your firm, when there is little threat to your career and backoffs are a stressful confrontation? A $300 top bettor staying for 45 minutes will cost the casino $45, and will cost the pit boss nothing.

The game has changed and evolved over the years (and not for the better) as Bojack mentioned. I have to disagree with you my friend, Friendo. You don't need lots of stats and figures to explain it; It's just common sense. Advanced methods are required not only due to keeping up but because a lesser spread is required to achieve the same result with more advanced methods, therefore risking less capitol and having (somewhat less) variance. Blackjack is NOT like it was 20 years ago, where enough capitol and a rudimentary knowledge of a basic hi-lo sort of count could sort of get you by.

I see and hear about these people tackling an 8 deck, H17 game with nothing more than a basic hi-lo count and feel they are sitting ducks... like trying to take down Godzilla with a BB gun. Even with the most advanced techniques, no one is "bulletproof" and to march in feeling you are invincible might be a false sense of security.

I feel that people should push to learn, improve and do whatever it takes because sometimes it takes a lot. If that means learning a more advanced count, so be it.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The game has changed and evolved over the years (and not for the better) as Bojack mentioned. I have to disagree with you my friend, Friendo. You don't need lots of stats and figures to explain it; It's just common sense. Advanced methods are required not only due to keeping up but because a lesser spread is required to achieve the same result with more advanced methods, therefore risking less capitol and having (somewhat less) variance. Blackjack is NOT like it was 20 years ago, where enough capitol and a rudimentary knowledge of a basic hi-lo sort of count could sort of get you by.

I see and hear about these people tackling an 8 deck, H17 game with nothing more than a basic hi-lo count and feel they are sitting ducks... like trying to take down Godzilla with a BB gun. Even with the most advanced techniques, no one is "bulletproof" and to march in feeling you are invincible might be a false sense of security.

I feel that people should push to learn, improve and do whatever it takes because sometimes it takes a lot. If that means learning a more advanced count, so be it.

The nice thing about counting is you can do it any time, any place, with or without partners and over a large range of bankroll, and still make money. This differs from HC play and promotion abuse that are only available sometimes.

 

[blackjack avenger]

A Man Has Got to Know His Limitations

Are you arguing that halves is better because it requires 179.64 fewer hours to achieve the same level of certainty about whether you will be ahead? If so, I'd point out that you may save 179.64 hours, but it seems less significant when you realize that you are comparing between 7,265.52 hours and 7,445.16 hours. It's about 2.5% difference. For someone who plays 500 hours in a year, that's a difference of 12.5 hours, assuming no errors.

Not arguing the fact that halves outperforms hi lo, it's a fact.

If competency is passed then assume minimal errors with a higher level count.

179.64 hours to me is very significant. A hi lo player will have their money in play with the variance those 179.64 hours trying to catch up with a halves player. While under scrutiny with the expenses involved.

The differences are greater then you think. You are thinking in terms of flat betting. If you think in terms of compound interest (resizing bets based on wins and losses) the differences are magnified.

Other points:
As the games get poorer one needs to play stronger
A stronger player has more EV so they can spare some EV if they feel the need for camo

In most things in society the higher skilled or the one who earns more is considered the better. Also, with most things the more you put into it the more you get out of it.

A higher level count is not an insurmountable mental hurdle for all. What if the mental effort involved in hi lo involved 35% of mental capacity and halves only increased the effort required by .01%?

Having said that I think most should stick with the count they know. Unlearning a task and then learning a new one is difficult and can be error prone especially when under stress.

Higher level counts outperform once competency is reached, its a fact. Then it's subjective if one thinks it's worth it.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Wrong Focus?

Should the focus be on high vs low level counts?
or
which is the best count at each level?

Example:
Halves is the best balanced level 3 count?

 

[Gamblor]

What aspect of your AP skillset you choose to improve is conditional, and there is no correct one size fits all advice that applies.

Some people are great at doing arithmetic in their head, and can instantly calculate the the tip owed by everyone at a large meal at restaurant. If your like this (I'm not ), great, a higher level count should come easy to you. To others it might not be worth your while.

Some people are great at think visually and memorizing visually. Great, go and learn more indices and learning about ST'ing. Again, if not, don't bother beyond much more than the I18. As an aside, my favorite oddball index play is not splitting AA v A at a -3 count. Guess how many times I got to pull that off in the last several months over hundreds/thousands of hours? Twice!

Some people of great memories for random numbers/events. Great, maybe ace sequencing is good for.

Some are good at interpersonal skills or have excellent mirror neurons, go ahead and improve your hustling AP moves and cover moves.

And so forth. There's a lot to learn about APing and improving your APing skills. I would recommend you amplify your strengths. And conversely, a man's got to know his limitations.

 

[Memphis10Tigers]

What aspect of your AP skillset you choose to improve is conditional, and there is no correct one size fits all advice that applies.

Some people are great at doing arithmetic in their head, and can instantly calculate the the tip owed by everyone at a large meal at restaurant. If your like this (I'm not ), great, a higher level count should come easy to you. To others it might not be worth your while.

Some people are great at think visually and memorizing visually. Great, go and learn more indices and learning about ST'ing. Again, if not, don't bother beyond much more than the I18. As an aside, my favorite oddball index play is not splitting AA v A at a -3 count. Guess how many times I got to pull that off in the last several months over hundreds/thousands of hours? Twice!

Some people of great memories for random numbers/events. Great, maybe ace sequencing is good for.

Some are good at interpersonal skills or have excellent mirror neurons, go ahead and improve your hustling AP moves and cover moves.

And so forth. There's a lot to learn about APing and improving your APing skills. I would recommend you amplify your strengths. And conversely, a man's got to know his limitations.

Great post. One person may want to use his time scouting tables with favorable games and use an unadvanced system whereas the other would rather play an average game and use an advanced system to beat it.

In the end, the versatility of your skill sets is what will make or break you. These are just my thoughts from a limited perspective.

 

[Friendo]

I'll Use Anything which Works

No objection to shuffle tracking - I have Snyder's book on order - or ace sequencing. I plan to do both.

The problem is certainty: I'm well convinced that the count in my head is the real one, and that the counting works.

Shuffle/ace tracking? Both have uncertainties which require far more perception to control, and computer simulations are of little use.

So after, say, 150 hours, you're doing fairly well at shuffle tracking, with a return twice your counting EV, and you know a couple of other trackers who do about as well.

So what. Your 150 hours could be short-term fluctuation, and your two friends could be excellent trackers, while you suck. The only way to know for sure is to keep playing and see whether things continue or you lose a lot of money.

I'm not against shuffle tracking, but it's far scarier than counting. I'll be practicing many more hours, since there's precise deck estimation and the need to track the current play for the next shuffle while betting according to the previous one. Sheesh!