Ace side count

Personally I like the ace side count you use with the UAPC system aces count 3 each for betting purposes but do not effect index plays.

Very often the ace count is my deciding factor on when to move in or move up and I think with a high ace count two or more hands might be a good move.

I have the UAPC down pretty well after 20 years and I just dont see the advantage to going to Hi-Lo and relearning all the indices at the age of 52. Once you know it well this 3 level sys is pretty darn easy.

Dopple said:

Personally I like the ace side count you use with the UAPC system aces count 3 each for betting purposes but do not effect index plays.

Very often the ace count is my deciding factor on when to move in or move up and I think with a high ace count two or more hands might be a good move.

I have the UAPC down pretty well after 20 years and I just dont see the advantage to going to Hi-Lo and relearning all the indices at the age of 52. Once you know it well this 3 level sys is pretty darn easy.

Click to expand...

Refresh my memory - what are the card tags for UAPC? zg

You mean value assigned I assume:

2.1..3.2..4.2..5.3..6.2..7.2..8.1..9.-1..10.-1.. For indices

A=3 For betting purposes i.e. if playing double deck and you have 1 deck out w no aces played add 12 to running for true betting count.

Make same count adj for shortness of aces i.e. in same situation if all aces were out you would subtract 12 from the running count.

Correction 10..-3

Tags or values(same thing)

Dopple said:

You mean value assigned I assume:

2.1..3.2..4.2..5.3..6.2..7.2..8.1..9.-1..10.-1.. For indices

A=3 For betting purposes i.e. if playing double deck and you have 1 deck out w no aces played add 12 to running for true betting count.

Make same count adj for shortness of aces i.e. in same situation if all aces were out you would subtract 12 from the running count.

Click to expand...

Besides being a little crude, the problem with SC ace's is that 1/2 the time, you usually dont get exactly 1/4 deck Increments when comparing aces to normal density. This is main purpose behind secondary counts such as the brh systems, not efficiency as you might suppose.

Lets take for example, In a DD game, that there is exactly 19 cards(1/3 deck) in the discard tray. Question: Do you go with a 1/4 or 1/2 deck? (1 or 2)

Lets also say there have been no aces and you decide to go with a 1/2 deck In the discard tray, so you Add +6 to your count, when In theory you should be adding exactly +4 1/2. Guess what? You just lost 50% of aces potential.

What to Do? Fortunately, theres a trick you can use IF you desired to become more accurate when SC aces. First take 3 and divide by 13= 4.33 then rounded to 4.

So now IF you CAN tell theres 20 cards in the discard tray you would add +5(4 divided by 20=5)

Now lets use another example and say theres approximately 32 cards in the discard tray and you've SC, 7 Aces's.(4 divided by 32=8)(7x3=21)(-21+8=-13)

With a little pre-memorization this can become second nature.

I realize this is Apples to Oranges,and you dont need this Info to win but I thought I would points this out, because Its one of the reasons sims give better results vs actual results in ace-neutral systems.

So the next time you see a little less than 1/2 deck in the discard with no aces in play, add +5 to the main count Not +6

Note: Same thing goes when using multi-params

Thank you very much I really appreciate your input.

Dopple said:

Thank you very much I really appreciate your input.Your welcome!!!!

Click to expand...

52cards>13(1D in discard tray)etc....

48cards>12
44cards>11*
40cards>10
36cards>9
32cards>8
28cards>7

**** >(1/2 Deck IN discard tray)

24cards>6
20cards>5
16cards>4
12cards>3
8cards>2
4cards>1

0cards>(In discard tray)
__________________________________

In essence, by using this method, you're actually valuing the Aces, @ 3.25 each, which is slighty stronger than when valued @ 3 each, plus its more accurate.

So, In a nutshell. If you can tell theres Aprox. *44 cards in the Discard tray and you've seen, "lets say," theres only been 2 aces In play..... Add +5

3X2=6-11=+5

Or if youve seen 3 aces(3x3=9-11=+2)

Note: Its actually 3.25x3=9.75-11=+1.25)) but now were really talking peanuts.

I think I could get that down in sd and dd but with 4 and 6 deck shoes I estimate as best by eye.

I have toyed with side card counts but it is too much to calculate right now.

If conditions allowed you could always seeks out sd or dd with a set number of hands and make that your specialty, say a 3 hand sd, you with 2 hands and one other person.

Then with fewer variables you could just kind of look at the table especially after the first round and quickly lock in the #of cards and you would have your multipliers for both ace count and tc.

I think there is a general move away from extreme accuracy though I saw an article by Snyder that even rounded Hi-Lo indices to orders of 5.

I have been wanting to go and learn uapc but i just dont see it as feasble to count 32 aces for an 8 deck shoe as thats pretty much all there is in AC

Seeing as you have been at it for years do you think you could tackle an 8 deck game with uapc successfuly?

Ferretnparrot said:

I have been wanting to go and learn uapc but i just dont see it as feasble to count 32 aces for an 8 deck shoe as thats pretty much all there is in AC

Click to expand...

It’s definitely not easy. What makes it worse is that you have to be able to estimate the discard tray to within ¼ deck in order to estimate the ace-density and make your betting decisions. If your accuracy is not good enough then you probably lose a lot of the power of the system since betting decisions are much more important in shoe games.

Ace-neutral counts are great for pitch games but they are less feasible in shoe games. It also limits your ability to track the cards or use other advanced techniques. I used to use Hi-Opt II myself because I was always playing SD and DD games, but I recently switched to Zen so that I could play shoe games much better. The indices are about the same so I didn’t have to learn any new ones.

-Sonny-

amen to Sonny. I switched from AO2 to Zen for shoes since i couldnt keep track of aces past the first 3 decks or so and still keep on bullshitting with the table, PC, etc. additionally, it got harder to estimate 1/4 decks in a shoe discard tray than for pitch games, at least for me. also helps i didnt have to change my indices since they were very similar to ao2.

I made $700 with a $1,000 in AC about ten years ago. I am sure alot of it was luck. I was probably on the tables 12 hours at the most over a two day period. This was using UAPC.

Incidentally, not to be confrontational but I dont think you really need to estimate the discards down to the quarter deck because it is the wild ace count flucuations that have the most impact.

Iv found in shoe games that over time, the cards get slightly thicker(as a whole stack of 8 decks) as they become played throughout the day, so as where it apears that there are 7 decks in the discard tray as 7/8th of it is full, there really is somewhere between 6 and 7 because the cards are "poofing up"
I think this would make it more difficult/almost impossible to guess accurate to 1/4 deck consistantly, unless you were sitting at first base and could compare by looking in the remainder of the shoe, or made sure to only play newer cards within a few hours of them coming out of a pack, or played in the highroller room since the cards are used less...everytime you picked a table

Now that i know about the quarter deck deal, i think all bets are off on this one for me simply because of this.

On a full table a side count of rounds could establish a rough correlation I would think. I know you should not play full tables though.

You could If desired add a secondary of A-4,8-1 vs 23456+1. For a BC .997

or something a little easier like A-3,8-1 vs 2345+1. For a BC. 994

Nevertheless Id find a way to drop that 8 for multiple deck play. SC or unbalanced, dont matter, id find a way. BjmathAnalyzer 3.5

rukus said:

amen to Sonny. I switched from AO2 to Zen for shoes since i couldnt keep track of aces past the first 3 decks or so and still keep on bullshitting with the table, PC, etc. additionally, it got harder to estimate 1/4 decks in a shoe discard tray than for pitch games, at least for me. also helps i didnt have to change my indices since they were very similar to ao2.

Click to expand...

Here is the complete list of Sims I ran modifying the shoe contents to see how the change in card counts affect the SCORE and to see if an Ace Side Count would offer any advantage . In every Sim run similar results were achieved. If there was too large a proportion of Aces to Tens, then the SCORE was substantially lower than the control Sim. When the Ace count fell in too large a proportion to the Tens, the SCORE fell but not as dramatically as the latter.
An Ace Side Count may be useful during the first 1-2 decks played of a shoe game if the SCORE is so dramatically affected. I would appreciate some input from the members.
Thanks
BJC

RPC RA (there are no indices <-7 or >9
All card counts are formatted as: A(Ace)-(2)-(3)-…. T(tens)
CONTROL SIM results: 4.5/6D pen TBA=1.076 SCORE=49.00

One deck played:
A24-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T76 TBA=1.030 SCORE=44.75
A20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T80 TBA=1.117 SCORE=53.08
A18-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T82 TBA=1.152 SCORE=56.69
A16-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T84 TBA=1.129 SCORE=54.72
A12-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T88 TBA=1.065 SCORE=49.21
A8-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T92 TBA=0.943 SCORE=39.12

TWO decks played:
A24-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T56 TBA=0.669 SCORE=18.84
A16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T64 TBA=1.109 SCORE=52.53
A12-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T68 TBA=1.124 SCORE=54.59
A8-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T72 TBA=1.007 SCORE=44.45

A24-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T56 TBA=0.611 SCORE=15.78
A16-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T64 TBA=1.057 SCORE=48.00
A12-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T68 TBA=1.076 SCORE=50.34

A24-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T56 TBA=0.625 SCORE=16.35
A20-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T60 TBA=0.905 SCORE=34.42
A16-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T64 TBA=1.058 SCORE=47.45
A12-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T68 TBA=1.080 SCORE=50.00
A10-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T70 TBA=1.019 SCORE=44.86

A24-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T56 TBA=0.618 SCORE=15.86
A20-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T60 TBA=0.915 SCORE=34.98
A16-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T64 TBA=1.077 SCORE=48.82
A12-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T68 TBA=1.094 SCORE=50.92
A10-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T70 TBA=1.051 SCORE=47.38

Three Decks Played:
A24-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T36 TBA=(-.415) SCORE=(-7.22)
A16-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T44 TBA=0.833 SCORE=29.42
A12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T48 TBA=1.051 SCORE=47.35
A8-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T52 TBA=1.030 SCORE=46.22

BJC