Unbalanced vs. balanced?

P

Phantom702

New Member
I am relatively new to blackjack. As far as I understand a balanced system always ends with a count of zero where as an unbalanced ends with the count not equaling zero. I was wondering what the differences were between the two i.e. does one have a higher advantage than the other
Thank you in advanced,
Phantom702
 
Phantom702 said:
I am relatively new to blackjack. As far as I understand a balanced system always ends with a count of zero where as an unbalanced ends with the count not equaling zero. I was wondering what the differences were between the two i.e. does one have a higher advantage than the other
Thank you in advanced,
Phantom702
Click to expand...

Balanced strategies, however more complex because of the need to calculate the true count, are typically stronger than unbalanced counts, although some of Don Schlesinger's work showed KO, an unbalanced count, to be only marginally weaker than Hi-Lo, a balanced count.

SP
 
Phantom702 said:
I am relatively new to blackjack. As far as I understand a balanced system always ends with a count of zero where as an unbalanced ends with the count not equaling zero. I was wondering what the differences were between the two i.e. does one have a higher advantage than the other
Thank you in advanced,
Phantom702
Click to expand...

Any book dealing with an unbalanced count always give answer to this question.
Have you read about Red 7 from Snyder's Blackbelt in BJ or any other detailed study on unbalanced system. I personally has selected Red 7 for my counting since I always play 6/8 decks and only 6 lately.
 
I would recommend that any new counter use an unbalanced system. It eliminates the mental gyrations to convert to TC. Also, a new counter may have difficulty estimating how many decks are unplayed. I have been hearing that some casinos have installed shoes and return trays that are hidden from view. At those places, an unbalanced system would be a great advantage.
 
If you are a casual/recreational player learn an unbalanced count, red 7 or ko are both good. If you go farther with the game, learn several counting systems because some are better for 6/8 decks while others produce better results for 1/2 deck. You can never know too much. Most books recommended by the community on this site are all required reading for anyone serious.
 
You can try doing deck estimations for a balanced count, like hi-lo, but if that's too hard to pull off, by all means use an unbalanced count.
 
KISS III vs. Red 7

Why is KISS III superior to Red 7, and do you feel it is substantially superior or is it a close call. I looked at KISS III, and it appears that the only difference is that 7's are +1 and 2's are 1/2 instead of vice-versa. KISS III could almost be called Red 2. I use Red 7 and my brain is acclimated to recognize Red 7 as +1 and Black 7 as neutral. With some effort I could retrain myself to KISS III if there were a substantial advantage.
 
Shoofly said:
Why is KISS III superior to Red 7, and do you feel it is substantially superior or is it a close call.
Click to expand...

I can probably give you a fair answer there. On the basis of pure card tag strength, Red 7 figures to be ever-so-slightly stronger than KISS III for unbalanced use (higher BC, but lower PE). You have to hand it to Arnold Snyder for coming up with the "half-rank" offset concept for a level one unbalanced count. I've talked with him and believe he is a class act.
KISS III however, comes with a fuller and more finely structured accessory package of index numbers (22), and wonging recommendations. This is particularly true if you use the "true fudging" method outlined in the book for betting and enacting the index plays (pgs 172-176).

I see no problem with using your Red 7 count along with KISS's index charts and true fudging method, since the two counts are virtually homogeneous. I believe it would fine tune your play. Just be sure to adjust all indices from an IRC of +9 to -12 (6 decks). etc, if that's how you're currently using it.

And yes, it has to be a close call between performances of the two basic counts.
 
Last edited:
Ordered the book today

Thank you for your response. I am most interested in the index and wonging recommendations. I don't know if it is common or if I am just slow on the uptake, but when using Red 7 I have a hard time figuring out where I am in negative counts for wong-out decisions.
 
Shoofly said:
Thank you for your response. I am most interested in the index and wonging recommendations. I don't know if it is common or if I am just slow on the uptake, but when using Red 7 I have a hard time figuring out where I am in negative counts for wong-out decisions.
Click to expand...

I never did agree with the idea of beginning with a negative IRC and waiting for it to become positive for bet ramping. That's why KISS III begins with a six deck IRC of "9", and starts the bet ramping at "20" (+1.5 TC approx). You spend nearly 100% of your time in positive number RC's. When you're 1.5 decks into the shoe, if your RC is "4" or less -- wong out! (-1.75 TC). This is just a blanket recommendation given in the book.

But you could amend that ground rule any way you wish. To be more conservative, wong out at "6" RC (-1.3 TC) that same depth into the shoe.

Suppose you wanted to wong out around -1.5 TC anywhere within the first 3 decks, but will stick it out with minimum bets beyond that point. Knowing that the RC should "normally" rise by 2 points for each dealt deck, you can set yourself up 3 checkpoints -- the first at one dealt deck, another at two decks and the third at three decks in the tray. Now just remember that you'll wong out if the RC is at or below "3", "7" and "10" respectively.
 
I am retired and have gone from workaholic to the laziest creature on the face of the earth. That is why I chose KO. But over time I have found some ways to improve its performance. One such improvement was extrapolated from the TKO spreadsheet downloaded from this Forum and from the Color of Blackjack.

First, I use an initial running count suggested by Fred Renzy several years ago in the Forum when I was just beginning. Instead of a KO IRC of -20, I begin my count at 80 (This makes 100 equivalent to 0 when using -20 as the IRC). So, my count begins at 80, my KO Key Count is 96, and my Pivot Point is 104, or just 4 (I drop the hundred when counting). Using this counting method, here is how it goes:

IRC = 80
True Key Count with 1 deck dealt = 89
True Key Count with 2 deck dealt = 92
True Key Count with 3 deck dealt = 95
True Key Count with 4 deck dealt = 98
True Key Count with 5 deck dealt = 101, or simply, 1

Contrariwise, KO Key Count with any # decks dealt = 96; so KO Key Count is only "True" at about 3 decks dealt.

True Pivot Point with 1 deck dealt = 4
True Pivot Point with 2 deck dealt = 4
True Pivot Point with 3 deck dealt = 4
True Pivot Point with 4 deck dealt = 4
True Pivot Point with 5 deck dealt = 4

KO Pivot Point with any # of decks dealt = 4; therefore, KO Pivot Point is always "True".

Here's how I use it:

1 deck dealt
78 wong out
79 to 88 = 1 unit
89 to 95 = 2 units
96 to 103 = 5 units
>103 = 10 units

2 decks dealt
83 wong out
84 to 91 = 1 unit
92 = 97 = 2 units
98 to 103 = 5 units
>103 = 10 units

3 decks dealt
88 wong out
89 to 94 = 1 unit
95=2 96=2 97=2 98=3 99=4 100=5 101=6 102=8 103=9 >103=10

4 decks dealt
93 wong out
94 to 97 = 1 unit
98=2 99=4 100=6 101=7 102=8 103=9 >103=10

5 decks dealt
98 wong out
99 to 100 = 1 unit
101=2 102=4 103=8 104=10

I haven't developed my betting progressions with any precision, just eye-balled them. The betting progression at 3 decks dealt is identical with the KO recommended progression except that it begins with 95 instead of 96. I haven't simmed it yet, so I don't know the exact gain (I told you I was lazy).

PS - Exit points begin at 78 and advance by five each deck dealt.
PSS - Key Counts begin at 89 and advance by three each deck dealt.
 
Last edited:
zengrifter said:
I couldn't imagine doing it any other way. zg
Click to expand...
Imagine there're no minuses ... notes1.gif
No negative count...
Imagine only pluses... notes-01.gif
Rising as a fount...
.............................Aslennonan
 
Last edited:
Kiss irc

Renzey said:
I can probably give you a fair answer there. On the basis of pure card tag strength, Red 7 figures to be ever-so-slightly stronger than KISS III for unbalanced use (higher BC, but lower PE). You have to hand it to Arnold Snyder for coming up with the "half-rank" offset concept for a level one unbalanced count. I've talked with him and believe he is a class act.
KISS III however, comes with a fuller and more finely structured accessory package of index numbers (22), and wonging recommendations. This is particularly true if you use the "true fudging" method outlined in the book for betting and enacting the index plays (pgs 172-176).

I see no problem with using your Red 7 count along with KISS's index charts and true fudging method, since the two counts are virtually homogeneous. I believe it would fine tune your play. Just be sure to adjust all indices from an IRC of +9 to -12 (6 decks). etc, if that's how you're currently using it.

And yes, it has to be a close call between performances of the two basic counts.
Click to expand...

I also use KISS III with the Red 7 tags - I read Renzey's previous posts saying it didn't make much difference and it was easier for me not to switch. I also kept the 0 pivot as I don't mind negative numbers.

But I have been using a IRC of -11 for six decks (not -12) as I thought it correlated with +9/20 (-11/0) - Does substituting the 7's for 2's alter the IRC?

Should I readjust my IRCs and Indices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top