Why are unbalanced counts better for RC's?

[assume_R]

The common technique is to use unbalanced counts (such as KO) with RC's, and balanced counts (such as HiLo) with TC's. But one can TC KO, and can RC HiLo.

My only guess is that since unbalanced count's don't have an "Expected" RC of 0, it can be used better as you go through multiple decks. Essentially the expected RC linearly increases as you go through the shoe, while with balanced counts, the expected RC is 0 always. But why would that make unbalanced counts more accurate with RC's?

Or, phrased another way, is using KO's RC more accurate than HiLo's RC for betting and playing?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The common technique is to use unbalanced counts (such as KO) with RC's, and balanced counts (such as HiLo) with TC's. But one can TC KO, and can RC HiLo.

My only guess is that since unbalanced count's don't have an "Expected" RC of 0, it can be used better as you go through multiple decks. Essentially the expected RC linearly increases as you go through the shoe, while with balanced counts, the expected RC is 0 always. But why would that make unbalanced counts more accurate with RC's?

Or, phrased another way, is using KO's RC more accurate than HiLo's RC for betting and playing?

Because of where the pivot point ends up in an unbalanced count. Using an IRC of -32 for an 8D game, the pivot point is 0, and an RC of 0 will behave the same way any place in a shoe and for any number of decks.

At a KO RC of 0 all kinds of good things happen! Insurance, powerful indices, and for betting you now have a significant advantage that you can count on any place in the shoe. For a balanced count the pivot point is also at an RC of 0, but the only significant thing that happens there is the 16 vs. 10 index.

 

[assume_R]

Because of where the pivot point ends up in an unbalanced count. Using an IRC of -32 for an 8D game, the pivot point is 0, and an RC of 0 will behave the same way any place in a shoe and for any number of decks.

At a KO RC of 0 all kinds of good things happen! Insurance, powerful indices, and for betting you now have a significant advantage that you can count on any place in the shoe. For a balanced count the pivot point is also at an RC of 0, but the only significant thing that happens there is the 16 vs. 10 index.

So pivot is the RC which means the exact same thing throughout the shoe?

Since the pivot of 0 with a balanced system corresponds approximately to the house advantage, it's not as useful as a pivot of 0 with an unbalanced system, which corresponds a high advantage? And you want to be more accurate when the advantage is high? Does that explain it? This is because the RC near the pivot is more accurate than the RC away from the pivot?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

So pivot is the RC which means the exact same thing throughout the shoe?

Since the pivot of 0 with a balanced system corresponds approximately to the house advantage, it's not as useful as a pivot of 0 with an unbalanced system, which corresponds a high advantage? And you want to be more accurate when the advantage is high? Does that explain it? This is because the RC near the pivot is more accurate than the RC away from the pivot?

Exactly. The pivot for an unbalanced count is at a more useful place.

The downside is that negative indices lose accuracy because they are so far from the pivot, but to a counter using a spread they're not as important.

 

[blackjack avenger]

It's All About Matching EOR

Look at the actual EOR for betting or playing then compare it to a counts tags. This is why Halves is so strong for betting, its pretty close to actual EOR for betting. Especially, look at the 2,5,7,9 EOR and then think of hi lo.

:joker::whip:
good cards

Auto Monkey probably has far more experience with unbalanced then I do. However, isn't there a problem with unbalanced in that it assumes an average of decks so quite a bit of built in deck estimation error? Small to medium advantages are probably harder to detect and bet properly.

For a balanced count most games gain a advantage at tc1, this is not hard to figure for deck estimation nor memory.

 

[TheMadHatter]

Look at the actual EOR for betting or playing then compare it to a counts tags. This is why Halves is so strong for betting, its pretty close to actual EOR for betting. Especially, look at the 2,5,7,9 EOR and then think of hi lo.

:joker::whip:
good cards

Auto Monkey probably has far more experience with unbalanced then I do. However, isn't there a problem with unbalanced in that it assumes an average of decks so quite a bit of built in deck estimation error? Small to medium advantages are probably harder to detect and bet properly.

For a balanced count most games gain a advantage at tc1, this is not hard to figure for deck estimation nor memory.

Someone had posted a spreadsheet here a while back that converted the KO RC to TC, and if you look at that, you can find definite patterns that make the whole memorization thing easier, while still maintaining the overall simplicity of the system. For example, with an IRC of 0 in a 6D game, I know that a RC of 9 is equivalent to a TC of 1, and that number goes up by 3 for every deck played. So with 4 decks remaining, I'm looking for a 12. I need a 15 with 3 decks remaining, etc. So, I catch a lot of those early opportunities just by remembering that. I found that this "reverse engineering", so to speak, opened up a lot of betting opportunities and also index fudging opportunities. One of the benefits of not hopping around from system to system, for me, was getting to know the one I play, inside and out, and making it work even better for me.


Peace,
TMH

 

[Renzey]

The expected RC of unbalanced counts linearly increases as you go through the shoe, while with balanced counts, the expected RC is 0 always. But why would that make unbalanced counts more accurate with RC's?

It's because as the count increases (with any count system), the supply of cards is always diminishing. And it's the positivity of the count in proportion to the number of remaining cards (the high-to-low ratio) that establishes the TC - or the advantage.
Now, with balanced counts, the ready solution is to divide the positivity of the count by the remaining supply of cards, giving you that ratio.
The brainstorm with unbalanced counts is to "offset" the initial high-to-low card tracking structure by such amount that as the count rises while the supply of cards diminishes, any specific running positivity will consistently indicate a fairly accurate TC -- or high-to-low ratio of remaining cards.

So yes, using KO, or KISS or Red 7 or UBZ in running count mode will indicate a more accurate TC than using Hi/Lo or Zen or Mentor or Revere or Halves in running count mode. Here's one 6 deck example comparing KISS and HI/LO, both in running count mode.

..............1 dk dealt......2 dks dealt......3 decks dealt......4 decks dealt
KISSIII...RC23=2.4 TC....RC23=2.5 TC....RC23=2.7 TC.......RC23=3.0 TC
HI/LO.....RC 8=1.6 TC.....RC 8=2.0 TC.....RC 8=2.7 TC.......RC 8=4.0 TC

 

[assume_R]

..............1 dk dealt......2 dks dealt......3 decks dealt......4 decks dealt
KISSIII...RC23=2.4 TC....RC23=2.5 TC....RC23=2.7 TC.......RC23=3.0 TC
HI/LO.....RC 8=1.6 TC.....RC 8=2.0 TC.....RC 8=2.7 TC.......RC 8=4.0 TC

Okay, that also makes sense. So the Unbalanced counts have RC's more correlated with advantage than Balanced counts, (at least at high counts, as monkey pointed out).

 

[zengrifter]

So why did Grosjean include suggestions ( in "THE BOOK") for using HiLo in RC mode for 6D?
I forgot the basis for the short entry. Just how bad can HiLo be, beneath say KO, in strictly RC mode? zg

 

[blackjack avenger]

Running at Halve Speed

I wonder how running halves would perform.
:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[blackjack avenger]

Complex Simplicity?

Someone had posted a spreadsheet here a while back that converted the KO RC to TC, and if you look at that, you can find definite patterns that make the whole memorization thing easier, while still maintaining the overall simplicity of the system. For example, with an IRC of 0 in a 6D game, I know that a RC of 9 is equivalent to a TC of 1, and that number goes up by 3 for every deck played. So with 4 decks remaining, I'm looking for a 12. I need a 15 with 3 decks remaining, etc. So, I catch a lot of those early opportunities just by remembering that. I found that this "reverse engineering", so to speak, opened up a lot of betting opportunities and also index fudging opportunities. One of the benefits of not hopping around from system to system, for me, was getting to know the one I play, inside and out, and making it work even better for me.
Peace,
TMH

Is it me or does it sound like tc'ing an unbalanced count is very messy, more so then a regular balanced system?

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Is it me or does it sound like tc'ing an unbalanced count is very messy, more so then a regular balanced system?

:joker::whip:
good cards

It's not that bad once you get used to a neutral count being -4 (or whatever it is) instead of 0. Besides that it is exactly like true counting a balanced system.

 

[Renzey]

Just how bad can HiLo be, beneath say KO, in strictly RC mode? zg

Ran a number of sims some time ago to find that out. Memory is a bit foggy on that, but I seem to remember that balanced counts played in RC mode lost nearly half their EV, making them substantially inferior to unbalanced counts (these were done for the shoe game). In any case, I remember dismissing the notion due to their impaired performance. Easy to do a couple more for substantiation.

At the Insurance level, which is also a point where a pretty big bet has been selected by that RC, things get considerably off the mark for a balanced sytem in RC mode. For example:

............1 deck dealt........2 decks dealt.......3 decks dealt.........4 decks dealt
Hi/Lo...+9 RC = 1.8 TC.....+9 RC = 2.2 TC....+9 RC = 3.0 TC.......+9 RC = 4.5 TC
KissIII..25 RC = 2.8 TC.....25 RC = 3.0 TC....25 RC = 3.3 TC........25 RC = 4.0 TC
KO......+2 RC = 3.6 TC.....+2 RC = 3.5 TC....+2 RC = 3.3 TC.......+2 RC = 3.0 TC

For these reasons, "true fudging" an unbalanced count is advocated. With KISS for example, the "fine points" section of the book advises "fudging" your index RC requirements between 24 and 26 up one point early in the shoe -- and down one point late in the shoe. RC reqirements of 27 and above should be raised two points higher early, and dropped two points lower late. The same would go for bet sizing.
Thus, 1.5 decks into the shoe, the required Insurance RC of 26 would equal +3.1 TC -- and 4 decks in, a 24 RC would equal +3.5 TC. You just know this in advance, and there's never any calculating on the fly. I don't imagine "true fudging" could be simmed. But I think that practically speaking in the real world, it approaches the accuracy of true counting a balanced system -- once the deck estimations and divisions have been rounded off.

 

[zengrifter]

Ran a number of sims some time ago to find that out. Memory is a bit foggy on that, but I seem to remember that balanced counts played in RC mode lost nearly half their EV, making them substantially inferior to unbalanced counts (these were done for the shoe game). Easy to do a couple more for sunstantiation.

That is what I recall too (vaguely) but I cannot remember why he included it as a strategy in "THE BOOK" -
- there was some rationale. Anyone care to look it up and enlighten us? zg

Ps - On the other hand, in the rare decent pene 1D game there is little difference using RC w/balanced count, provided the indices are suitably revised. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Is it me or does it sound like tc'ing an unbalanced count is very messy, more so then a regular balanced system?

No, its not much differetn and minutely stronger than bal'd TC system. zg

 

[assume_R]

On the other hand, in the rare decent pene 1D game there is little difference using RC w/balanced count, provided the indices are suitably revised.

Others have said this in the past, but in pitch games I much prefer a good solid unbalanced RC system rather than trying to accurate estimate quarter decks, or whatever.

I was more curious as to shoe games, where I primarily use balanced systems.

 

[zengrifter]

Others have said this in the past, but in pitch games I much prefer a good solid unbalanced RC system rather than trying to accurate estimate quarter decks, or whatever.

I was more curious as to shoe games, where I primarily use balanced systems.

It is highly UNrecommended that you switch back and forth like that. zg

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It is highly UNrecommended that you switch back and forth like that. zg

He can do it. Trust me on this.

 

[zengrifter]

He can do it. Trust me on this.

You can do it too ... but its NOT worth the effort, trust me. zg

Ps - Here's why AutoMonk can do it - Who is Smarter -- Man or Chimp? -VIDEO