Relative difficulty of card counting strategies

QFIT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
QFIT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
QFIT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
NAP said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right, tables in WordPress are a royal pain. Fixing it now. On arbitrariness, they are certainly based on pure opinion. Arguments are welcome.
 
Turns out that Zen and Omega, DO have the same numbers. Table updated and Omega II/ASC added.
 
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
Click to expand...

Good idea. Much, much easier.
 
true count & side count penality

I think you TC penalty & side count penalty are to low.

I think the real division of difficulty is the above & not individual card tags. Don't forget to TC one needs to perform accurate deck estimation.

Adding & subtracting tags should be easier then TC division.
 
blackjack avenger said:
I think you TC penalty & side count penalty are to low.

I think the real division of difficulty is the above & not individual card tags. Don't forget to TC one needs to perform accurate deck estimation.

Adding & subtracting tags should be easier then TC division.
Click to expand...

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.
 
QFIT said:
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.
Click to expand...

My count is halves with hi Lo experience. Yes, once I get to RC of 20+ things get tougher. However if one uses unbalanced & frequently gets to 20+ the familiarity may make it less troubling. Perhaps if a RC system hits 20+ frequently then a penalty.
 
opposites

Level I with TC for betting and indices
VS
Higher level with RC for betting and indicies

Which is easier?
Which has higher SCORE?

Norm if you sim. I request halves in RC mode, catch 22, fab 4 since I perhaps provided the idea.
 
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.
 
blackjack avenger said:
Level I with TC for betting and indices
VS
Higher level with RC for betting and indicies

Which is easier?
Which has higher SCORE?

Norm if you sim. I request halves in RC mode, catch 22, fab 4 since I perhaps provided the idea.
Click to expand...

If you mean a balanced strategy with RC for betting and indices, this pderforms very poorly at any level. Although, at single-deck, you could get away with RC betting.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top