A discussion in another thread reminded me that I wanted to take a deeper look at the difficulty of the various strategies. I've posted this at http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=312 (Archive copy) and welcome civil discussion or the factors involved.
Relative difficulty of card counting strategies
- Thread starter QFIT
- Start date
Very interesting. Looks like perhaps you forgot to update some of the numbers in the table after copy/paste? For instance, AO2 and Zen rows are the same, along with two of the ASC vs non-ASC rows.
I like what you did at the start with the card pair value frequencies but I think the bonuses/penalties you hand out after that seem too arbitrary. That said, the results do seem to be in line for what one would expect, so arbitrary does not necessarily imply inaccurate.
I like what you did at the start with the card pair value frequencies but I think the bonuses/penalties you hand out after that seem too arbitrary. That said, the results do seem to be in line for what one would expect, so arbitrary does not necessarily imply inaccurate.
Last edited:
Great work! As an avid user of your REKO count for shoe games, I agree completely with the ease of this count. The simplicity really gives you the ability to do a lot of other things at the table and not look like a counter. I have progressed to REKO-Full to maximize the indexes. This makes it only slightly more difficult but levels out the variance.
Nice work Norm 
. The only comment I have about the infinite-decks limitation. I think it would be nice to have three separate tables like for one deck, two decks and 6 or 8 decks. For instance for side-counting aces, it is much easier to do it for pitch games because you have fewer aces and it is easier to estimate quarter deck resolution than in shoe games. Otherwise I like
. The only comment I have about the infinite-decks limitation. I think it would be nice to have three separate tables like for one deck, two decks and 6 or 8 decks. For instance for side-counting aces, it is much easier to do it for pitch games because you have fewer aces and it is easier to estimate quarter deck resolution than in shoe games. Otherwise I like
iCountNTrack said:
Nice work Norm . The only comment I have about the infinite-decks limitation. I think it would be nice to have three separate tables like for one deck, two decks and 6 or 8 decks. For instance for side-counting aces, it is much easier to do it for pitch games because you have fewer aces and it is easier to estimate quarter deck resolution than in shoe games. Otherwise I like
. The only comment I have about the infinite-decks limitation. I think it would be nice to have three separate tables like for one deck, two decks and 6 or 8 decks. For instance for side-counting aces, it is much easier to do it for pitch games because you have fewer aces and it is easier to estimate quarter deck resolution than in shoe games. Otherwise I like
I agree on side count. On TC, yes it is substantially more difficult to estaimte and calculate. OTOH, the large range of RCs gives some people difficulty with unbalanced counts. You are dealing with double digit counts far more often, which adds to tye counting difficulty. Probably still should raise the penalty.
My 2 Cents
As a new counter I feel Red 7 is easier than KO. Personally, and it may be different for everyone, but I feel the added difficulty of suit aware counts like Red 7/ KISS get a lot more attention then they deserve.
Both the larger range of the count of KO and more actual cards to deal with make this a more difficult count for me. In this regard Hi-lo is even easier, and KISS 1 would win.
Also, I didn't see counts where avoiding negative numbers were given a bonus - though perhaps its subsumed under unbalanced counts.
As a new counter I feel Red 7 is easier than KO. Personally, and it may be different for everyone, but I feel the added difficulty of suit aware counts like Red 7/ KISS get a lot more attention then they deserve.
Both the larger range of the count of KO and more actual cards to deal with make this a more difficult count for me. In this regard Hi-lo is even easier, and KISS 1 would win.
Also, I didn't see counts where avoiding negative numbers were given a bonus - though perhaps its subsumed under unbalanced counts.
Recommend don't mix the objective data of card-cancelling during the dealout with subjective numbers describing the difficulty of sidecounting and true counting, based on personal opinion and anecdote. Sidecounting is effortless for some people, deck estimation and/or division difficult for others, while others have a problem with counts above level 1. No way to quantify it universally in any meaningful way.
Maybe you could use a Java screen that starts with the objective number, and allows the user to estimate the difficulty of true counting, sidecounting and the other tasks of card counting, and the sum (?) is then listed for each count.
Also... ace sidecounted systems are unpopular for shoe games not because of the number of aces, but because the value of PE and IC relative to BC goes down in shoe games. And also, the playing value of the ace switches from a low card to a high card as count increases, and when you have a large spread the importance of this effect will be magnified.
Maybe you could use a Java screen that starts with the objective number, and allows the user to estimate the difficulty of true counting, sidecounting and the other tasks of card counting, and the sum (?) is then listed for each count.
Also... ace sidecounted systems are unpopular for shoe games not because of the number of aces, but because the value of PE and IC relative to BC goes down in shoe games. And also, the playing value of the ace switches from a low card to a high card as count increases, and when you have a large spread the importance of this effect will be magnified.