Possible Changes to be Made

[Pelerus]

I've been counting on and off casually for several years, making trips to the nearest casino (Foxwoods) about once every month or two - some of which I have posted about here. I am now taking the hobby a bit more seriously and plan on putting in some serious play time (and effort) next summer. In the meantime, I am motivated enough to make some changes in my play to improve my chances.

I am currently a hi-lo/I-18/Fab 4 player who plays 8 deck shoes with decent penetration (6-6.5/8) and a spread of $15-150 (Sorry - the way I phrased that makes it sound like some kind of erotic classified ad :whip: :laugh.

I know that this spread has been criticized by some, and it is certainly one area I would like to address (bankroll concern and fear of heat have been the two main obstacles: I have no experience with higher spreads, and I feel almost laughable when I increase my bet so monstrously, particularly since Foxwoods is my "home casino"). In any case, more difficult changes I am contemplating making are memorizing additional index numbers - and possibly full indexes - or switching counting systems entirely.

On that note, I am wondering how hi-lo with full indexes compares to other, stronger systems with only partial indexes. At this point, if learning the full indexes provides enough of a boost, I will probably do just that. Nevertheless, I have been tinkering around on the Qfit site with count comparisons, and I have found one oddity: on the "Blackjack Strategy Advisor," when higher abilities are selected (for deck estimation, division, etc.), Omega II with Side Count receives the first or second score every time, regardless of the type of game. Cross-checking on the "Card Counting Systems Summary" page, Omega II receives good but not spectacular scores for BC, PE, IC relative to the other counts.

So what explains the difference? Is Qfit trying to push Omega? Is it their "house system"? :laugh: Or is it merely that the numbers were arrived at without the side count that the Advisor specifies? If this is the case, I would be interested to know the numbers with the side count. I am also interested in Omega because I have not seen it referenced much on this site compared to the high praise it seems to garner from Qfit.

Thanks for your any advice you can give a lonely counter, 24 y/o m seeking comfort...j/k :devil:

 

[Kasi]

one area I would like to address (bankroll concern).

Worry about nothing else.

All else is dust in the wind.

 

[EasyRhino]

If bankroll is capping bets on the top end, try to wong in-out more on the bottom end.

That will make a better difference than using a fancier system.

 

[cardcounter0]

Four letters: 'W', 'O', 'N', and 'G'

When ever I hear the words "eight decks", I immediately shudder, my eyes roll up into the back of my head, and all I can do is drool and mumble wong ... wong ... wong ...

 

[rukus]

I've been counting on and off casually for several years, making trips to the nearest casino (Foxwoods) about once every month or two - some of which I have posted about here. I am now taking the hobby a bit more seriously and plan on putting in some serious play time (and effort) next summer. In the meantime, I am motivated enough to make some changes in my play to improve my chances.

I am currently a hi-lo/I-18/Fab 4 player who plays 8 deck shoes with decent penetration (6-6.5/8) and a spread of $15-150 (Sorry - the way I phrased that makes it sound like some kind of erotic classified ad :whip: :laugh.

I know that this spread has been criticized by some, and it is certainly one area I would like to address (bankroll concern and fear of heat have been the two main obstacles: I have no experience with higher spreads, and I feel almost laughable when I increase my bet so monstrously, particularly since Foxwoods is my "home casino"). In any case, more difficult changes I am contemplating making are memorizing additional index numbers - and possibly full indexes - or switching counting systems entirely.

On that note, I am wondering how hi-lo with full indexes compares to other, stronger systems with only partial indexes. At this point, if learning the full indexes provides enough of a boost, I will probably do just that. Nevertheless, I have been tinkering around on the Qfit site with count comparisons, and I have found one oddity: on the "Blackjack Strategy Advisor," when higher abilities are selected (for deck estimation, division, etc.), Omega II with Side Count receives the first or second score every time, regardless of the type of game. Cross-checking on the "Card Counting Systems Summary" page, Omega II receives good but not spectacular scores for BC, PE, IC relative to the other counts.

So what explains the difference? Is Qfit trying to push Omega? Is it their "house system"? :laugh: Or is it merely that the numbers were arrived at without the side count that the Advisor specifies? If this is the case, I would be interested to know the numbers with the side count. I am also interested in Omega because I have not seen it referenced much on this site compared to the high praise it seems to garner from Qfit.

Thanks for your any advice you can give a lonely counter, 24 y/o m seeking comfort...j/k :devil:

Rhino is right - wong in and out and your 1-10 spread should be fine for now.
as for AOII (omega II with ace side count), you are right. the BC listed on qfit.com is without the side-count of aces. with the side count of aces, BC goes to .98 i believe (maybe it was .99). you wont find many other counts with a better PE or IC. that said, many advise against side counting aces in shoe games.

depending on how you play (do you wong in/out or play all hands?), the # of indices can vary. if you wong out, which you should always try and do at 6 and 8 deckers, you dont need to worry about any index below -2 or so. i personally would recommend you learn indices beyond the I18, up to +10, but thats just me. many will tell you hi-lo is just fine for shoe games and they are right. BC is what matters. even if you want a higher count, i would still advise using the same number of indices.