running count

[borya]

I wonder how hi-lo and hi-opt woold compare to ko if player only use running count to change his playing strategy? I can play using ace 5 count. Now it come time to add litle to my black jack play. I was thinking to use hi-opt becase of best playing corelation.
I Have Devloped plus and minus strategy i think easyest to memorise. Plus strategy. Always doble on 10 and 11. Doble on 9 vs 2-7 , 8 vs 5-6. Hit Until 12 vs 2-6, 17 vs 7-9 And A, 15 vs 10. Soft doubdle A2-A9 vs 4-6 , A6-A7 vs 2-3. Take insuranse. Minus strategy. Double on 11 vs 2-10, 10 vs 2-8, 9 vs 5-6. Hit until 14 vs 2-3, 13 vs 4-6, 17 vs 7-10. No soft double.
But i wonder what woold be best strike number like uston plus minus number be for difrent counting metods hi-opt ko hi-lo?

 

[Opinion]

I Would Recommend

Hi Low has a lot of research to back it up and to augment it. Also, in the future if you want to go to a higher count the Halves count is very similar and is an easy transition.

If you are playing mostly shoe games then betting correlation is more important then playing correlation.

 

[shadroch]

Hi Low has a lot of research to back it up and to augment it. Also, in the future if you want to go to a higher count the Halves count is very similar and is an easy transition.

If you are playing mostly shoe games then betting correlation is more important then playing correlation.

Looks like someone forgot to switch out of Shill Mode before answering.
Hope your play at the tables isn't as sloppy.

 

[callipygian]

Plus strategy. Always doble on 10 and 11. Doble on 9 vs 2-7 , 8 vs 5-6. Hit Until 12 vs 2-6, 17 vs 7-9 And A, 15 vs 10. Soft doubdle A2-A9 vs 4-6 , A6-A7 vs 2-3. Take insuranse. Minus strategy. Double on 11 vs 2-10, 10 vs 2-8, 9 vs 5-6. Hit until 14 vs 2-3, 13 vs 4-6, 17 vs 7-10. No soft double.

Are you serious?

 

[mdlbj]

Not to discount the value of more difficult counts but, they are making movies about people who used a simple yet powerful count system.

I will admit when playing single or double deck I use a different counting method but, for a shoe game, the simplicity and power of Hi-Lo as well as the expected values one gets from it may be the way to go.

I don't see to many theorists being able to put a more difficult counting system into practice with a positive outcome $

 

[borya]

I like to play double deck. Casinos always think i am progression player. I am not want to change their thinking. If they ever find out i am counting cards they woold only let me play poker. I just want to play my hands litle beter than basic strategy player. But i do not want to use idexes and true count.
If hi-lo is best what is strike numbers?

 

[callipygian]

If they ever find out i am counting cards they woold only let me play poker.

You'd be welcome to play at my casino if you used that strategy, whether you counted cards or not.

 

[blackjack avenger]

In With Both Feet, Cuz I Need Them To Count Those Higher Level Systems! LOL

Not to discount the value of more difficult counts but, they are making movies about people who used a simple yet powerful count system.

I will admit when playing single or double deck I use a different counting method but, for a shoe game, the simplicity and power of Hi-Lo as well as the expected values one gets from it may be the way to go.

I don't see to many theorists being able to put a more difficult counting system into practice with a positive outcome $

A higher level count can add about 3% or more to the EV.
If the MIT team made millions then 3% or more of millions is a very large number.

More complex systems lower the time to the long run. The long run numbers are very large so reducing them by 3% or more is desirable.

If you employ fractional Kelly betting then small improvements or advantages are greatly magnified. A 5% improvement can inflate to perhaps a 10% improvement.

Some people may never be able to use effectively a more complex system, others may be able to use a higher system with no real additional effort. With most things in life you get out of it what you put into it. Practice, practice, practice!:whip:

 

[borya]

What wrong whith using difrent strategy for when running count get above specific number and 3rd strategy for when running count get below specific number?

 

[Diver]

What wrong whith using difrent strategy for when running count get above specific number and 3rd strategy for when running count get below specific number?

Because too much dificult for other stoopid peebles on team to follow more than one.

 

[Sonny]

What wrong whith using difrent strategy for when running count get above specific number and 3rd strategy for when running count get below specific number?

Both Ken Uston and the MIT team have talked about similar systems. There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a weaker way to play. It is more powerful to learn the numbers for each play individually instead of learning only a few changes at 1 or 2 different counts. Memorizing a few numbers isn't very difficult and you will be playing a stronger game.

-Sonny-

 

[Brock Windsor]

If you employ fractional Kelly betting then small improvements or advantages are greatly magnified. A 5% improvement can inflate to perhaps a 10% improvement.

? Please explain that paragraph. I think you're implying a fractional bettor sees greater returns because of the improved PE than a full kelly bettor which I don't believe to be the case. Also a 3% improvement is 3% regardless of bankroll size. Therefore you only have to be able to play 3% longer with the weaker system for them to be of equal value. If you can make 2 units per hour with a difficult system and play 6 hour sessions, you only have to play an extra 10 minutes in each session to have the same equivalent advantage with a weaker system. Personally I think using a more simple system allows the player to play significantly longer without becoming fatigued and error prone. After considering ease of use, time in training, errors, fatigue, etc. the more complex systems are not worth it. Spend that time learning skills outside of counting and searching more favourable conditions.
BW

 

[EasyRhino]

If you're playing with a system that gets you an extra 0.3% advantage in certain cases, you could also bet 0.3% more if proportionally betting, so the results tend to get compounded.

The extreme example would be knowing your next card is an ace and getting a ~40% edge, but then going ahead and betting ~40% of your bankroll on it.

 

[blackjack avenger]

? Please explain that paragraph. I think you're implying a fractional bettor sees greater returns because of the improved PE than a full kelly bettor which I don't believe to be the case. Also a 3% improvement is 3% regardless of bankroll size. Therefore you only have to be able to play 3% longer with the weaker system for them to be of equal value. If you can make 2 units per hour with a difficult system and play 6 hour sessions, you only have to play an extra 10 minutes in each session to have the same equivalent advantage with a weaker system. Personally I think using a more simple system allows the player to play significantly longer without becoming fatigued and error prone. After considering ease of use, time in training, errors, fatigue, etc. the more complex systems are not worth it. Spend that time learning skills outside of counting and searching more favourable conditions.
BW

fractional (resizing) bet improvements think of compound interest.

On your time in a casino analogy. If a player plays every weekend that is 104 days. If he plays a stronger game then he can take a couple of weekends off and have the same results as he would employing a weaker system. Extra time in a casino is also time you can get booted.

If you have the ability a harder count may not be that difficult. If it takes extra time practicing and learning well the tradeoff is less time in a casino.

I was fortunate in that I jumped to a higher level count early in my career so I did not have to really unlearn another count.

 

[Brock Windsor]

If you're playing with a system that gets you an extra 0.3% advantage in certain cases, you could also bet 0.3% more if proportionally betting, so the results tend to get compounded.

The extreme example would be knowing your next card is an ace and getting a ~40% edge, but then going ahead and betting ~40% of your bankroll on it.

Thanks, that makes sense. You're putting more money on the table each hand with the stronger system if you're a Kelly bettor. Once you have wagered an equal amount of money with both systems the % dif in advantage will still be the difference in net gain assuming both systems use the same Kelly betting fraction. The stronger system will just put more money on the table more quickly. Personally I am still a proponent of playing the extra time with a more simple system to achieve the desired net result, but I can appreciate the arguments put forward for stronger systems....they just don't win me over

 

[Diver]

My apology

Because too much dificult for other stoopid peebles on team to follow more than one.

If I was off base in thinking there was a little Sasha Baron Cohen comes to Vegas going on. Looks like everyone else made a worthwhile discussion of it in any case.