keeping it simple

[Billy C1]

Ethical?

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.

True, the game is evolving and different methods of AP are being used. In my own case, I refuse to go much "beyond counting" because I'm a believer in treating others as they treat me.
There's nothing dishonest about counting and the same is probably true for shuffle tracking but intentional holecarding crosses the line for me.
I'm very much aware of the "opportunity" I'm missing but I sleep better this way.

BillyC1

 

[Gamblor]

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.

Actually ST gives you more certainty than counting With counting you don't really know if the high cards are behind the cut or not, or for that matter if you really have the right count in your head With ST you get instant confirmation if you did it right or not. You'll know what I'm saying if you experience it,the cards you expect often start flying out when you expect it. Of course, I have had on occassion experienced where everyone at the table gets a bunch of aces except me :laugh:

Of course, as you mention with the smaller sample size, if you get the cards you expect right, you might have just been lucky But the "good" thing is if your wrong, you definitely know it!

Now sequencing, I'm a little more wary of that, but that's probably because I never really tried it (play mostly shoe games).

 

[Sucker]

I refuse to go much "beyond counting" because I'm a believer in treating others as they treat me.

Wait until you've been detained for hours at a time & accused of criminal activity, when they know for a fact that you're doing nothing more than counting cards.

Wait until you have gaming commission flyers sent out to every casino warning them about you - the cheater. (I won't even mention the Griffin Book; not sure if that is even published anymore.)

Wait until you or one of your friends have been physically assaulted or maybe even beaten to a pulp.

Maybe you'll change your philosophy a bit once you have obtained first-hand knowledge of how these "others" that you speak of actually DO treat you.

 

[Billy C1]

Wait until you've been detained for hours at a time & accused of criminal activity, when they know for a fact that you're doing nothing more than counting cards.

Wait until you have gaming commission flyers sent out to every casino warning them about you - the cheater. (I won't even mention the Griffin Book; not sure if that is even published anymore.)

Wait until you or one of your friends have been physically assaulted or maybe even beaten to a pulp.

Maybe you'll change your philosophy a bit once you have obtained first-hand knowledge of how these "others" that you speak of actually DO treat you.

I'm probably as vindictive as they come and if I ever was treated like that my approach would likely change. Hasn't happened yet.

BillyC1

 

[Friendo]

Holecarding Morality

Since the actual odds on winning a jackpot on most slot machines are kept from the customers - the casinos are willing to expend effort to keep this information out of public knowledge - it's clear the casinos aren't in the business of correcting any misconceptions their customers might have about their chances.

I don't see how a holecarder is compelled to neglect an opportunity or inform the pit if a game has worse odds for the casino than management assumes.

We would have to be pretty nasty to treat casinos as they treat us.

 

[Billy C1]

Since the actual odds on winning a jackpot on most slot machines are kept from the customers - the casinos are willing to expend effort to keep this information out of public knowledge - it's clear the casinos aren't in the business of correcting any misconceptions their customers might have about their chances.

I don't see how a holecarder is compelled to neglect an opportunity or inform the pit if a game has worse odds for the casino than management assumes.

We would have to be pretty nasty to treat casinos as they treat us.

Most (maybe all) of what you say is true. I have people that I refer to as friends that holecard. It's just not for me.

BillyC1

 

[creeping panther]

Sucker

Wait until you've been detained for hours at a time & accused of criminal activity, when they know for a fact that you're doing nothing more than counting cards.

Wait until you have gaming commission flyers sent out to every casino warning them about you - the cheater. (I won't even mention the Griffin Book; not sure if that is even published anymore.)

Wait until you or one of your friends have been physically assaulted or maybe even beaten to a pulp.

Maybe you'll change your philosophy a bit once you have obtained first-hand knowledge of how these "others" that you speak of actually DO treat you.

Well put and spot on.!:whip:

CP

 

[winnawinna]

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

I would have to agree. TR7 counting all 7s as .5 is an easy to learn level 2 count. I love the TR7 and its ease of use. I would never use another system regardless of sims.

 

[Nynefingers]

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.

I'm not convinced that errors are minimal with a higher level count, but for now I'll assume that you are correct. We're still only talking about a SCORE improvement of less than 2.5% (49.5 vs. 48.4) based on the numbers you provided. I'm actually a little surprised by that, as I would have expected it to be more significant.

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.

You missed the point of my post. Of course 179.64 hours is meaningful, but the length of time after which the difference equates to 179 hours is more than the typical recreational player will play in a lifetime. We're not talking about the difference between 179 hours and 279 hours here. We're talking 2.5% difference. Forget about the 179 hours and focus on the 2.5%.

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.

Coincidentally, I do prefer flat bet games, but I'm guessing what you really mean is not moving up in stakes. I think KJ has pretty well identified the highest level that can be played in Vegas with limited longevity risk. Once you're past the quarter level, it's tougher to play a lot of hours at higher stakes. KJ is underbetting his bankroll for the sake of longevity, not because a level one count hasn't won him enough money to bet higher. Would he have made more in the same time if he'd been using halves with no errors? Sure. 2.5% more.

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

I agree that you should play stronger, but we disagree about the methods. I prefer a level 1 count and shuffle tracking (where applicable), which is stronger than your higher level count. Not only that, but tracking in itself can function as camo. I decided to stay with a level 1 count so that I can use my brainpower more effectively to improve my edge by tracking or other methods. That's not to say you can't track with a level 2 count...I've met guys that were very good at doing just that. Scary good. But they'd still do almost as good with the level 1 count and the same ST skills. I expect that I'd have a hard time with a more complex count, ST, and general situational awareness, so for me, I prefer level 1.

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.

I don't care whether I'm considered better than anyone else. I just care how much money I make. I've stated above why, for me personally, I can get more out of a level 1 because I can focus on other things more easily.

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%?

See above. If it really were a truly miniscule additional effort, I'd do it, but for me, in conjunction with other techniques, it is not worth the effort.

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.

Don't disagree with this.


Still though, this whole discussion is really moot. Bojack has it right when he says we should be focusing on ways to improve the numbers on the left side of the decimal point, not the right side.

 

[tthree]

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.

The best players I know use the most advanced system in the best games only, with advanced techniques. It is not an either or decision. You should take every advantage at your disposal.

One of their most useful plays is to not use a huge spread except on the rarest of astronomical counts. This allows them to play the best games for years and years at a nice advantage. If they make a good hit they are on to the next game. If they make to many big hits in a short period of time they don't go back for a while. Longevity is about the casino's comfort level. One step to far and a good game ends up with 50% penetration for them and they know greed cost them huge.

 

[blackjacktilt]

What ever happened to the keep things simple theory? We seem to have ongoing discussions about certain topics that have been going on for a couple years. Probably much longer than that, but my involvement has only been 4 years. Things like level 1 vs level 2 counts. Cover vs hit and run. Ill18/fab4 vs 50, 60 or even a 100 or more indices.

Lets combine them all. I submit to you player 'A' playing a level one count, hi-lo, playing short sessions, aggressively wonging out of negative counts and exiting immediately after positive counts, using only illustrious 18/fab4 vs player 'B' playing a level 2 count, using 50+ strategy change indices, and various camo cover such as misplaying certain hands, using some sort of parlaying up of wagers rather than just blatantly moving money with the count and and of course not reverting back to a smaller wager at the start of the new shoe.

For the sake of this discussion, I will concede that player 'B' can play his higher level 2 count just as accurately and efficiently as the player playing a level one count, a point I really don't concede in real world play. So player 'B' actually achieves the 5-10% increase in performance that simulations indicate that he should. We'll go on the higher end and say an 8% increase and even bump that to 10% because of the additional index plays that he is using, although in reality plays beyond the illustrious 18 or lets say top 2 dozen add very little value. So his performance is up 10%, but now we have to subtract for cover. Depending on just haw many hands he chooses to play incorrectly, plus the inaccurate wagering, plus larger wagers off the top at negative EV and what is he giving back? 10%? 15%? Maybe more? If I remember correctly Ian Anderson gave back about 33%. (I might add here, that I just love the idea off giving back a portion of my profits to the casino industry. They are struggling so badly it just makes me feel good to help out. )

Ok up til this point everything can be answered with sims, but I don't want to do so because there is more to the equation that can't be answered by sims. The longevity, camo vs hit and run short session discussion.

Cover only buys so much. The fact is counters have more money on the table during high counts than low no matter how they attempt to disguise it. Eventually that will be the thing that is the give away. When that happens, the powers that be will begin to examine the play and when they do, cover plays wont mean that much. They will mostly be focusing on the amount of wagers during different counts. Maybe a few specific plays like insurance, but the bet correlation is the biggie, and player 'B' has provided a good amount of play to examine. Player 'A' has provided them with a very minimum amount of play to examine. Especially a player 'A' playing unrated. So the question: Who really is going to have more longevity? And what has all that cover (givebacks) really bought you?

So again, I ask are these “advanced” methods like higher level count, more indices, and cover really the best approach, or is there something still to be said for keeping things simple?

Granted, living and playing in the desert as I do, I have the benefit of having many, many games in close proximity that many do not. Also want to add a disclaimer that player 'A' and player 'B' are totally fictional are in no way represent anyone that I know. :laugh:

Great post, thanks Jason. (this includes your responses as well). Always a pleasure reading your posts.

 

[tthree]

What about player C.

I like player C who plays short sessions, wongs in and out aggressively with a very strong counting system in BC, PE and IC and leaves after a good count ends.

Apples and oranges.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Objective VS Subjective

I'm not convinced that errors are minimal with a higher level count, but for now I'll assume that you are correct. We're still only talking about a SCORE improvement of less than 2.5% (49.5 vs. 48.4) based on the numbers you provided. I'm actually a little surprised by that, as I would have expected it to be more significant.

I used a common game, but not a good game. The better the game the more Halves will probably outperform. I quickly found a less common; but good game, where Halves outperforms about 8% at N0, so with kelly resizing it would outperform even more. For big players small increases in advantage add up to larger $'s. If you are basing your thoughts on 2.5% then I erred.

You missed the point of my post. Of course 179.64 hours is meaningful, but the length of time after which the difference equates to 179 hours is more than the typical recreational player will play in a lifetime. We're not talking about the difference between 179 hours and 279 hours here. We're talking 2.5% difference. Forget about the 179 hours and focus on the 2.5%.

The advantage of the higher level counts show themselves the first hour you play, not after a certain number of hours.

I would think the law of large numbers would show the importance of getting that N0 lowered? If it was 179 vs 279 then everyone would be winning! The problem with BJ is the variance which Halves chips away at vs hi lo.

On competency, can't have it both ways. If you can perform competency with hi lo then the same tests apply to halves. I can flip the argument and say one should only use the A5 count because one cannot prove competency in hi lo. Is counting a deck in 30 sec the standard or not? Counting involves simple math; even hi level counts, there is no calculus involved at the tables.

Coincidentally, I do prefer flat bet games, but I'm guessing what you really mean is not moving up in stakes. I think KJ has pretty well identified the highest level that can be played in Vegas with limited longevity risk. Once you're past the quarter level, it's tougher to play a lot of hours at higher stakes. KJ is underbetting his bankroll for the sake of longevity, not because a level one count hasn't won him enough money to bet higher. Would he have made more in the same time if he'd been using halves with no errors? Sure. 2.5% more.

KJ underbetting his bank is subjective.

KJ I think did have his resizing growth stage, so it's more then 2.5%. He would probably lower bets on losses, so again higher then 2.5%. He also plays better games then I mentioned, so again more then 2.5%.

Many posts are about losing or variance. Well, a higher level count can help combat variance. If one resizes their bets based on wins and losses they will experience more growth and more bank safety. This is where stronger players gain from their higher level counts. If one does not lower bets on losses then they have a ROR. Some do play higher then KJ

I agree that you should play stronger, but we disagree about the methods. I prefer a level 1 count and shuffle tracking (where applicable), which is stronger than your higher level count. Not only that, but tracking in itself can function as camo. I decided to stay with a level 1 count so that I can use my brainpower more effectively to improve my edge by tracking or other methods. That's not to say you can't track with a level 2 count...I've met guys that were very good at doing just that. Scary good. But they'd still do almost as good with the level 1 count and the same ST skills. I expect that I'd have a hard time with a more complex count, ST, and general situational awareness, so for me, I prefer level 1.

I don't think anyone can reasonably state:
I use level 1 to keep things simple and then I ST. That combination is not simple. I should be able to add more complexity to a higher level count to make things equal?

You mention yourself ST "when applicable". A higher level count is always in play. If one is playing a low level count to be able to employ ST in very limited circumstances then they may be handicapping themselves.

It's not consistent to say level II may not beat level 1 but affirmatively ST beats a level II count.

ST is adding a lot of complication with probably competency being harder to measure.

I don't care whether I'm considered better than anyone else. I just care how much money I make. I've stated above why, for me personally, I can get more out of a level 1 because I can focus on other things more easily.
See above. If it really were a truly miniscule additional effort, I'd do it, but for me, in conjunction with other techniques, it is not worth the effort.

Still though, this whole discussion is really moot. Bojack has it right when he says we should be focusing on ways to improve the numbers on the left side of the decimal point, not the right side.

Depends on the game:
A good game halves does much better.
but
A bad game halves may make the game playable.

The other techniques are completely different things with their own subjective positive and negative aspects. I know something that beats every AP move ever posted here. Invent the widget everyone must have, or be an expert at obtaining passive income. This thread was about the simple vs complex counts. Yet, even the opening post talks about comparing counts but hobbling the higher level count with camo.

When comparing counts one should be consistent:
both play all
both wong
both ST
as examples.
Also, one should consider the game they actually face. Are higher level counts worth it for AC or Vegas players? What if you play more handheld? Is ST viable where you play? Play all vs Wong? The actual variables can influence one's decision.

Having said the above, one should not max out their mental efforts on counting. If one can barely keep a count in a casino then they need more practice or consider simplifying things. Counting in a casino should be about effortless, subjective of course.:grin:

 

[gamblingghost]

A for effort

I used a common game, but not a good game. The better the game the more Halves will probably outperform. I quickly found a less common; but good game, where Halves outperforms about 8% at N0, so with kelly resizing it would outperform even more. For big players small increases in advantage add up to larger $'s. If you are basing your thoughts on 2.5% then I erred.



The advantage of the higher level counts show themselves the first hour you play, not after a certain number of hours.

I would think the law of large numbers would show the importance of getting that N0 lowered? If it was 179 vs 279 then everyone would be winning! The problem with BJ is the variance which Halves chips away at vs hi lo.

On competency, can't have it both ways. If you can perform competency with hi lo then the same tests apply to halves. I can flip the argument and say one should only use the A5 count because one cannot prove competency in hi lo. Is counting a deck in 30 sec the standard or not? Counting involves simple math; even hi level counts, there is no calculus involved at the tables.



KJ underbetting his bank is subjective.

KJ I think did have his resizing growth stage, so it's more then 2.5%. He would probably lower bets on losses, so again higher then 2.5%. He also plays better games then I mentioned, so again more then 2.5%.

Many posts are about losing or variance. Well, a higher level count can help combat variance. If one resizes their bets based on wins and losses they will experience more growth and more bank safety. This is where stronger players gain from their higher level counts. If one does not lower bets on losses then they have a ROR. Some do play higher then KJ



I don't think anyone can reasonably state:
I use level 1 to keep things simple and then I ST. That combination is not simple. I should be able to add more complexity to a higher level count to make things equal?

You mention yourself ST "when applicable". A higher level count is always in play. If one is playing a low level count to be able to employ ST in very limited circumstances then they may be handicapping themselves.

It's not consistent to say level II may not beat level 1 but affirmatively ST beats a level II count.

ST is adding a lot of complication with probably competency being harder to measure.



Depends on the game:
A good game halves does much better.
but
A bad game halves may make the game playable.

The other techniques are completely different things with their own subjective positive and negative aspects. I know something that beats every AP move ever posted here. Invent the widget everyone must have, or be an expert at obtaining passive income. This thread was about the simple vs complex counts. Yet, even the opening post talks about comparing counts but hobbling the higher level count with camo.

When comparing counts one should be consistent:
both play all
both wong
both ST
as examples.
Also, one should consider the game they actually face. Are higher level counts worth it for AC or Vegas players? What if you play more handheld? Is ST viable where you play? Play all vs Wong? The actual variables can influence one's decision.

Having said the above, one should not max out their mental efforts on counting. If one can barely keep a count in a casino then they need more practice or consider simplifying things. Counting in a casino should be about effortless, subjective of course.:grin:

Interesting points about halves. Hi lo has a standard deviation of .22% Halves has a standard deviation of only .06%. "The low standard deviation means that the halves count makes almost no errors in estimating the advantage." "The halves count is a very close approximation of the true value of each card."
If one is an expert with hi lo "you can switch to counting halves in easy stages." Counting halves adds about ".1 bets per hour" . So, every ten
hours of play adds an additional bet to your winnings!! Now THAT is significant!! Personnally, I have been counting halves for more years than I can remember and I couldn't imagine counting any other way, it is so darn easy now!!

 

[mikeyd]

Counting halves

I am a recreational player who has been counting hi lo for less than a year.
Although I haven't posted too much, I have been reading the posts regularly.
I want to thank all the posters here for all your great advice.

I am interested in the extra advantage from the halves count,
but wonder how much more difficult it would be than hi lo.
After alot of practice, I find that I can usually keep the hi lo count pretty effortlessly,
although if the dealer is real fast, I have to work harder to keep up.
So I'm wondering how much counting halves would slow down the counting.
Seems like alot more syllables to say 2.5, 4.5, 6.5 in your head ,
than 2, 4, 6.
What do you say in your head for the half numbers?
Any other advice for counting halves (other than practice alot)?

 

[gamblingghost]

"a haf"

I am a recreational player who has been counting hi lo for less than a year.
Although I haven't posted too much, I have been reading the posts regularly.
I want to thank all the posters here for all your great advice.

I am interested in the extra advantage from the halves count,
but wonder how much more difficult it would be than hi lo.
After alot of practice, I find that I can usually keep the hi lo count pretty effortlessly,
although if the dealer is real fast, I have to work harder to keep up.
So I'm wondering how much counting halves would slow down the counting.
Seems like alot more syllables to say 2.5, 4.5, 6.5 in your head ,
than 2, 4, 6.
What do you say in your head for the half numbers?
Any other advice for counting halves (other than practice alot)?

In my mind I'm saying, "anda haf". Not, "point five". Only a split second more.
It doesn't matter if you can count down a deck in less than thirty seconds.
Once you are an "EXPERT" with hi lo you can go to halves in "STAGES".
It is all in Pro BJ. Just know this. It is like muscle learning. Once you got it
second nature it is EASY!

 

[psyduck]

Wong half is a level 3 system. It has ~4% higher PE than HiLo, but its IC is ~4% lower than HiLo. Sure it has ~2% higher BC. Any other benefit?

 

[gamblingghost]

Wong half is a level 3 system. It has ~4% higher PE than HiLo, but its IC is ~4% lower than HiLo. Sure it has ~2% higher BC. Any other benefit?

I thought it was a level 3 IF there is a side ace count added. Without the sidecount it is as easy as hilo as far as charts to memorize. You still get .1 units more per hour of play. Because it finds advantages more often than
hilo the player is betting up more often. That could be a benefit for comp players. You want more benefits!? Look, it's just a count, not a babe serving
roast beef sandwiches.:grin:

 

[Friendo]

I am interested in the extra advantage from the halves count,
but wonder how much more difficult it would be than hi lo.
...
Any other advice for counting halves (other than practice alot)?

I don't use Wong Halves in the casino, but I did practice it extensively before switching to Mentor (level 2), which is what I use under fire. I still think Halves is a sweet count. Awesome bet correlation and only one parameter.

I used the syllable "kay", while visualizing a capital K after the number, for the additional half-count: 3.5 sounds like "3K", 0.5 is "K", and -10.5 is "M10K" in my head.

I got real good at Wong Halves because I practiced on and off for 3 years as a nervous habit in front of the television, or while on the train: shuffle, count, shuffle, count. I only switched to Mentor for the 2-deck true count.

I just counted down a deck four times using Halves: average time was 28 seconds. I'm pretty rusty, and I'm not that quick, but you'll soon see 5-2 as "2", J-A-5 as "minus K" without effort. The only issue is the tag for 5, which cancels quickly in your mind after enough practice.

I don't think of Halves as being harder than a two-level count, because there is only one card with that 1.5 weight.

As to whether it's worth the effort: that's personal, I think. It may be harder to play ultra-fast heads up with a dealer using a higher-level count, but I'm not sure: opinions vary. Back-counting tables at a glance is probably harder, but may be worth the effort. But with 1 or more other players at the table, it certainly doesn't matter.

If you can get it to the point where it doesn't feel like much more effort to count halves, then it's worth it, IMO.

 

[kewljason]

I was under the impression that many players who play halves, double everything, card values and indices so they are only dealing with whole numbers.