My Strategy (RUSH Count)

D

Dave2112

Member
#1
#1
I was a basic strategy player for many years but recently decided to learn counting. I started with the Wizard Ace/5 which I liked due to it's simplicity. You only have to count 2 kinds of cards and no running/true conversion the way he describes it. Of course the EV is lacking and it just didn't make sense to not count tens. I shyed away from Hi-Lo and similar counts because that's what everyone seems to do and I did not want to have to count almost every card.

So I wrote my own primitive bj simulator and started playing with some deviations from the Wizard Ace/5. Here is what I came up with (my apologies to anyone who came up with this before but I did not see it when searching online):

A: -1
3: +1
4: +2
5: +2
10-K: -1
All others: 0

Betting progression: if RC > 3 (or TC > 1 if converting)

then bet = previous bet * 1.7
(1,2,3,5,8,14,24,41...)
Otherwise bet = 1

All plays are basic strategy (until indexes are documented).

My simulator program leavs alot to be desired (only handles split to two hands, and seems to have some bugs) but one thing I noticed is that the 1.7 factor on the progression seems to be ideal for a wide variety of other changes that I tried so it might be useful for other counting systems.

I'm wondering how this compares to other strategies like Hi-Lo or Wong halves. While it is 2-level I found it easy to use as you are only counting 5 types of cards. It seems to work very well in live games.

Could someone with a better simulator come up with some index plays for this system?
 
A

ArcticInferno

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
You propose a system that’s as difficult as a level two system, but far weaker than a level one system. It has an atrocious betting correlation.
Here’s my suggestion.
Read about 5, maybe 6 books.
Learn Hi-Lo and practice on the computer.
Play in a real casino and make some money.
And then, and only then, consider developing your own system.
However, you’ll see that most systems that could have been developed have already been developed. If you come up with a “new” system, chances are, someone already considered it and abandoned it.
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
#3
#3
Dave2112 said:
I was a basic strategy player for many years but recently decided to learn counting. I started with the Wizard Ace/5 which I liked due to it's simplicity. You only have to count 2 kinds of cards and no running/true conversion the way he describes it. Of course the EV is lacking and it just didn't make sense to not count tens. I shyed away from Hi-Lo and similar counts because that's what everyone seems to do and I did not want to have to count almost every card.

So I wrote my own primitive bj simulator and started playing with some deviations from the Wizard Ace/5. Here is what I came up with (my apologies to anyone who came up with this before but I did not see it when searching online):

A: -1
3: +1
4: +2
5: +2
10-K: -1
All others: 0

Betting progression: if RC > 3 (or TC > 1 if converting)

then bet = previous bet * 1.7
(1,2,3,5,8,14,24,41...)
Otherwise bet = 1

All plays are basic strategy (until indexes are documented).

My simulator program leavs alot to be desired (only handles split to two hands, and seems to have some bugs) but one thing I noticed is that the 1.7 factor on the progression seems to be ideal for a wide variety of other changes that I tried so it might be useful for other counting systems.

I'm wondering how this compares to other strategies like Hi-Lo or Wong halves. While it is 2-level I found it easy to use as you are only counting 5 types of cards. It seems to work very well in live games.

Could someone with a better simulator come up with some index plays for this system?
Click to expand...
Your system tags aren't unreasonable but don't accomplish anything unique- why not just use an established system like RPC or High-Low?

Also I don't think you should be using the word "progression" in association with this.
 
D

Dave2112

Member
#4
#4
Automatic Monkey said:
Your system tags aren't unreasonable but don't accomplish anything unique- why not just use an established system like RPC or High-Low?

Also I don't think you should be using the word "progression" in association with this.
Click to expand...
The goal was to find something different from Hi-Lo (for cover) that performed about the same and required counting the fewest possible cards. In my simulations it comes in only slightly worse than Hi-Lo, but as noted my simulations might be crap :) The "difficulty" of 2-level is offset by not having to count as many cards. I don't find the +2's difficult at all.
 
6

65D

Active Member
#5
#5
level 2's are not much more difficult than level 1's

cover is not going to come from using a counting system that is NOT mirrored to HI-LOW.

cover is going to come from the "appearance" that you are a gambler, mostly due to your personality and manuerisms, and then to a lesser degree how you play your hands and how your bet spread looks. But selected a less efficieint counting system, with the rational of reducucing cover is counter-productive (pun...in both sences)


The 6 has a value of ZERO, yet the 3 has a +1???

The 6 has a higher Effect of Removal Value than the 3. (albeit a small amount, but it's still higher) So why would u count the 3, yet not the 6?

In actual practice I would argue that your theory of desiring to NOT count some cards can be actually detrimental to the overal speed of counting.

When cards are dealt, and you see several "cancellations", that is what makes counting easier and faster. The more cancellations, the faster it is too count.

Having more cards without a value at all, not only decreases the accuracy of the system, but it also produces less "cancellation" opportunities when counting.

http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage85.htm

JMHO, if you want something that is NOT Hi-Low (yet stronger)
...and is NOT difficult at all. I would go FELT

A -2
2 +1
3 +2
4 +2
5 +2
6 +2
7 +1
8 0
9 0
10 -2

and if you did not want to memorize SEVERAL indexes at the very beginning...you could start w/ the Ben Franklin Count (which is basically FELT, with rounded indexes)

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/Ben-Franklin-Count.pdf

This is just my suggestion, but when there are players at the table, and cards are a flying...you WANT to see cancellations...you do NOT want to see cards that first you must recognize if they have a point value, then which direction it is...then how much it is...THEN...is there an inverse next to it that cancells it.
 
Y

ycming

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
65D said:
cover is not going to come from using a counting system that is NOT mirrored to HI-LOW.

cover is going to come from the "appearance" that you are a gambler, mostly due to your personality and manuerisms, and then to a lesser degree how you play your hands and how your bet spread looks. But selected a less efficieint counting system, with the rational of reducucing cover is counter-productive (pun...in both sences)


The 6 has a value of ZERO, yet the 3 has a +1???

The 6 has a higher Effect of Removal Value than the 3. (albeit a small amount, but it's still higher) So why would u count the 3, yet not the 6?

In actual practice I would argue that your theory of desiring to NOT count some cards can be actually detrimental to the overal speed of counting.

When cards are dealt, and you see several "cancellations", that is what makes counting easier and faster. The more cancellations, the faster it is too count.

Having more cards without a value at all, not only decreases the accuracy of the system, but it also produces less "cancellation" opportunities when counting.

http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage85.htm

JMHO, if you want something that is NOT Hi-Low (yet stronger)
...and is NOT difficult at all. I would go FELT

A -2
2 +1
3 +2
4 +2
5 +2
6 +2
7 +1
8 0
9 0
10 -2

and if you did not want to memorize SEVERAL indexes at the very beginning...you could start w/ the Ben Franklin Count (which is basically FELT, with rounded indexes)

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/Ben-Franklin-Count.pdf

This is just my suggestion, but when there are players at the table, and cards are a flying...you WANT to see cancellations...you do NOT want to see cards that first you must recognize if they have a point value, then which direction it is...then how much it is...THEN...is there an inverse next to it that cancells it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the Ben-Franklin count, do you know if there is a similar document for the Zen count ?

Thanks
Ming
 
J

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
Dave2112 said:
A: -1
3: +1
4: +2
5: +2
10-K: -1
All others: 0

Betting progression: if RC > 3 (or TC > 1 if converting)

then bet = previous bet * 1.7
(1,2,3,5,8,14,24,41...)
Otherwise bet = 1
Click to expand...
This is an atrocious system.

From our very own calculator:

PE: 0.45
BC: 0.88
IC: 0.64

Compared to HiLo:

PE: 0.51
BC: 0.97
IC: 0.76

What makes it dramatically worse is that you just have a progression for any TC>1, rather than correlating bets with advantage. Your ROR goes up greatly, and your profits diminish substantially.

This is truly awful. This "cover" is costing you dearly.
 
Last edited:
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#9
#9
Dave2112 said:
A: -1
3: +1
4: +2
5: +2
10-K: -1
All others: 0
Click to expand...
System would only make sense with a bi-valuate (ie multiparameter) adjustment scheme.
Other wise, like another said, you have a level-2 that underperforms HiLo. zg
 
A

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
zengrifter said:
System would only make sense with a bi-valuate (ie multiparameter) adjustment scheme.
Click to expand...
Can you define that? Do you mean side counts, or some derivative of side-counting such as using 2 separate counts simultaneously?
 
6

65D

Active Member
#11
#11
ycming said:
Thanks for the Ben-Franklin count, do you know if there is a similar document for the Zen count ?

Thanks
Ming
Click to expand...
I am sure there is, just use the search feature on here (upper right).
I am not that familar w/ ZEN, but I am sure there are verions of it that uses rounded indices.
 
D

Dave2112

Member
#14
#14
johndoe said:
This is an atrocious system.

From our very own calculator:

PE: 0.45
BC: 0.88
IC: 0.64

Compared to HiLo:

PE: 0.51
BC: 0.97
IC: 0.76

What makes it dramatically worse is that you just have a progression for any TC>1, rather than correlating bets with advantage. Your EOR goes up greatly, and your profits diminish substantially.

This is truly awful. This "cover" is costing you dearly.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this is very helpful.
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
IF you are unable/unwilling to read Blackbelt in ...

The so-called "True Edge" is a rounded index computed by ¼ decks; that reflects the very approximate advantage the player has at a given count.

True Counting by whole decks is easier and more accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top