Advanced Point Count Strategy

[JCollegeGuy]

I'm pretty new to card counting and have looked over many different strategies and one I like in particular is Revere's advanced point count strategy. I like his because he really did his homework and gives specific percentages behind plays that a lot of counters haven't done. I've read mixed reviews in that some say that his Advanced Point Count strategy is outdated and others say that it is a very powerful system if implement correctly. Does anyone have any advice on this system compared to others? Also, I've only been able to find info on the one deck system, which is useless unless playing 6:5. Does anyone know the conversion to 6 deck? I've thought about making the conversion myself, but I'm also aware that the slightest miscalculation could destroy any percentage of advantage given by the system.

One other thing I have trouble understanding, that has somewhat to do with the Martingale system and Law of Independent Trials.

Okay, I remember reading a player about a player at a Roulette table where the table had hit red 9/10 times before he arrived. He continued to bet red and won but eventually broke even. He stated another gambler telling him he was dumb for continuing to bet red, to which he replied that his odds for hitting black were 50/50 no matter what the previous outcomes were. (Law of independent trials) While I understand that, wouldn't you expect red and black to even out.....For example, if the game hit red 9 out of the last 10 times, wouldnt the odds be incredibly slim to hit red 16-18 out of 20? (.5 not red * .5 not red * .5 not red etc etc.) Wouldnt the odds be better for the game to even out somewhat?

Which leads me to the question about the martingale. (I know the Martingale doesn't work in the long run, however, I'm looking for someone to explain more specifically how it doesn't)
Let's say you lose 12 or so hands in a row, which will happen say approx. 3 or so times out of every 8 hours of session. This means that losing 12 or so hands in a row is less than half a percent assuming the player wins 39-41% of all hands dealt. Therefore, wouldn't you expect that as you continually lose hands, that the odds (based on averages) would say that the chances of you losing the upcoming hand become increasingly smaller and smaller. And every time I read the negatives about the Martingale progressives, it uses the 12-16 hand losing streak example (16 and beyond im assuming getting into the 4 and 5 Standard Deviation range), so it would seem that the negatives are using the exception as the example. I hope I was clear and anyone with any advice who can clarify this for me is greatly appreciated.

Thanks and good playing everyone!
CollegeDude

 

[aussiecounter]

First up, this was posted in the wrong section. There is a Card Counting section below the Blackjack General one.
I'll hold back on the :flame: because its your first post, but in the future, try to get your posts into the correct section. You'll get better responses too.

I'll ignore your first question about counting systems, except to say that I use the Hi-Lo system and I find it easy and it seems to work well.

About the Martingale and roulette.
First up, roulette is not 50:50, black:red. There are one or two others, usually green I think, that give the house their edge for the game. So the ratio is more like 17:17:1, or something like that, with the one being the green 0. I'm unsure about the numbers I used as an example, but just be certain, its definitely not 50:50.

Each spin at roulette is totally uninfluenced by anything that happened before! So if you've had 5 reds in a row, the chances for getting another red are still about 47% or whatever. And if you do get another red, the chances for yet another will still be 47%.

The Martingale does not work for one simple reason, there is no guarantee that you will EVER get the win to get you out of your losing streak. This usually kills you when your bet gets bigger than the table limits.
Those twelve losses you mentioned, look here: $1,$2,$4,$8,$16,$32,$64,$128,$256,$512,$1024,$2048.
Now, how many $1 tables do you know with $2k+ limits? Or if you use $10 as your bet at a $10 table, how many have $20k limits? None I'm thinking.
There is no way to get around it. Sure, when your bet is at the limit of your $10 table, you take your next bet, say, $1024, to a higher limit table. But then you have 3 more losses and you are over the higher limit. Admittedly this wont happen often, but if you are playing long enough it probably will(15 losses in a row), and then you are ruined.

You say the chances of losing 12 in a row is about 0.5%? Well, say you've just played 199 'series' of Martingale, to win 199 units, or $1990, or maybe a bit more with a few opportune blackjacks(at $10 table), then you hit the almost inevitable losing streak and are down $20k. You cant win.

 

[JCollegeGuy]

I appreciate the response, although I couldn't help but feel there was a large amount of sarcasm attached to your response.

I'll be a little more clear as to what I'm asking. (Please remember all the percentages I gave are approximations)

Sorry about the red/black/green confusion, although your pointing out that the odds aren't truly 50/50 did nothing to answer my question. (And thanks for your introduction to Independent Trials)

Going back to the Martingale system, I'll use a variation as an example. Assuming once again that the odds are APROX. 60/40. Lets say you bet $10 mixed with a Hi/Lo count, and you've lost 9 consecutive hands at 10 a hand, with the current shoe at a true count of +2. On the next hand you bet 100$ (which from what I've seen, is a very common thing for a gambler to do.). Wouldn't your odds based on statistics (.6 ^10) say that the odds of you losing the next hand were very slim. Now, if you were to take up all of these theoritical "10th hands," I would expect the winning percentage for all of these hands to be true to the 49.2-49.7% as you would expect from playing Basic Strategy, I'm asking someone to basically explain how your "continually losing hands" are getting into the .01%th percentile, yet at the same time, remain true to the 60/40 averages expected. Because to me this seems like a paradox.

Now taking it even a step further., taking the +2 count into account (I don't know the percentages of advantage based on per number per true count, also I realize the true odds would depend on burn cards, penetration, 5's and A's, but all those calculations are beyond the scope of what I'm asking) Assuming that you're at an advantage with a +2 true count, would it be safe in the long run to make bets such as this?

Thanks for any response. Although I'm new to posting, I do have a good general understanding of blackjack, card counting, statistics, calculus, and other things that go into blackjack.

 

[zengrifter]

I've read mixed reviews in that some say that his Advanced Point Count strategy is outdated and others say that it is a very powerful system if implement correctly.

It IS out-moded, and its NOT worth the effort. The Revere Point Count that comes in the Revere book is better but will require an updated betting scheme. zg

 

[aussiecounter]

Sorry if you got the impression I wa being sarcastic, but I wasnt. I was just trying to impress upon you the uselessness of the Martingale system.

You are very confusing, are you sure you have a good understanding of blackjack, stats, math, and counting etc?
Do you know what the Martingale involves? You bet 1 "unit", and if you win, you always bet one unit again. If you lose, you just keep doubling your bets until you get a win. This way you always win only 1 unit every "series" of bets.
You say you bet 9 bets at $10 each and lost 9. How is this related to a Martingale? If you lost 9 bets starting at $10, you would bet $5120, not $100.

Your musings on the theoretical 10th hand are very, hmmm, i don't know? You state that you believe a basic principle, and then say "that shouldn't work". Just face it, seeminly incredible runs of wins/loses do happen, and if you have just won say, 619 hands in a row, the chances of winning the next one would still be 40/60 or whatever odds are the norm.

If you have a +2 count and that puts you at an advantage for the game, then yes, you should make the bet, but this has no relation to use in a Martingale system. Counting while playing a Martingale is pointless because the Martingale System dictates what you are to bet, and count dependant bet sizing is the main attraction of a counting system.

And please don't go getting snappy with established members of the forum, your post could have been torn to pieces by any number of members, but this forum is not like that and I hope it stays like that. I held back, believe me.

 

[Canceler]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused!

I was going to attempt an answer here, but I think I'll just sit back and let you handle it, aussiecounter.

 

[aussiecounter]

Awww, I think we may have scared him off.

 

[JCollegeGuy]

You scared me off?

Your initial response started off by saying since it was my first post, you would be so gracious as to spare me the ":flame: ".
Then you proceed to explain things that I had said I completely understood in my first post (Law of Independent Trials...flipping a coin, rolling a di)
And in my initial post, I stated in BIG BOLD LETTERS, so I wouldnt get the response that you gave...that I knew the martingale didn't work in the long run and I asked someone to explain more specifically how it doesn't work. (in a mathematical sense) You gave the typical "get rich playing blackjack" book response.
And in my second post, you get onto me about the martingale system i used as an example...when I clearly said was a variation, I used a player losing 10x in a row, and on his 10th bet making a 100 dollar bet to recoup his losses from the previous 9 hands. And I said immediately following the sentence that I have seen players at tables do this many times.

It wasn't scared off, but what is the point of replying to someone who
1. Put words in my mouth...You quoted me as saying "That shouldn't work," although I never said that.
2. Obviously didn't even read my post, because you posed questions that were already answered.
3. Takes a holier than thou, show off attitude with a first time poster.
4. Ices the cake with, "Awww, I think we may have scared him off"

I paid no mind to 1-3 until you came out with the last post.

 

[KenSmith]

Back on topic here... Let's flip a coin instead of playing blackjack or roulette.
If it's come up heads 10 times in a row, do you really think that affects the possibility of the next toss being either heads or tails? Of course not.

Yes, 11 heads in a row is a rarity. (Once in 2048 trials on average.) However, that's not the question. After we've had 10 heads in a row, we're asking about the next toss. Once you have 10 heads in a row, getting to 11 is a 50/50 proposition.

As for the concept of using a Martingale in positive counts, there are a few issues. First, the count must be quite high before you'll actually have a better than 50% chance of winning the next hand. You get an edge with modest plus counts because of blackjacks, doubles and splits, not by winning more than half your hands.

Would the idea work, if you only made your Martingale wagers in really high plus counts? Yes, if you had an unlimited bankroll. For the rest of us, the Martingale would quickly have you overbetting your edge compared to your bankroll. Eventually, you'll find that losing streak that will bankrupt you.

The usual advice of betting larger but limited amounts of your bankroll when you have an edge is safer, and more profitable.

 

[zengrifter]

Back on Topic - Revere APC...

... was the relevant question. RAPC underperforms some easier systems and at best is equal to others, like ZEN and RPC which do not require level-3 and Ace-sidecount complexity, or in the case of UBZEN not even a TC-adjustment is required to obtain virtually all of RAPC's power... thus RAPC is an antiquated relic. zg

RAPC IS out-moded, and its NOT worth the effort. The Revere Point Count that comes in the Revere book is better but will require an updated betting scheme. zg

 

[Midnite]

What is your next bet ?

JCollegeGuy - If you make the $100 bet and lose, what do you do ?

Do you wait for another loss of 10 hands in a row and bet $100 again or $200 ? (BTW I show the odds of losing 10 in a row as 1 in 1666.)

Or do you just start the Martingale with $100-200-400-800-1600-3200 after ten losses in a row ? ($6,300 if you lose 6 more hands)

Are you talking about, only the 11th bet or starting the Martingale after ten losses in a row ?

 

[matteotm]

the odds of losing 10 hands in a row is 1 in 1666. ?

you should play with me . the odds are about 5/1


if i could take those odds 1666/1 about me losing 10 hands in a row id take it . lol not to say its an incorrect odds, maybe im just in a bad mood because of the beating i took 2nite.

i doubled down on 11 for $200 to get a picture card.
then the dealer from a '4' pulled 21.

and from then i lost a bunch of bad beats, lol what a nightmare.

my last $50 i was dealt "14"

i pulled 3 aces in a row for 17"

stood against dealer ten........and he stilled pulled out an ace to get blackjack. go figure that one.

 

[BJStanko]

APCs

I've read mixed reviews in that some say that his Advanced Point Count strategy is outdated and others say that it is a very powerful system if implement correctly. Does anyone have any advice on this system compared to others?

Advanced Point Count strategies are not outdated, but they are extremely hard to use in real life situation. They are a little bit harder to master than for example HI-LO, but keeping side count of aces and than recalculating it in the true count is very hard for most of the people. Mistakes you make when using one of APC systems can be very costly. Profit that you would gain from using one of advanced point count systems is not that big at all, especially in shoe games where that difference is negleatable. They make big difference if you play exclusively hand held games (only if you do not make any mistakes using advanced card counting system), but there is a big drawback with hand held games - it is very easy to spot card counters. Almost all of card counters I know today avoid hand held games. This does not mean you should avoid hand held games, but I think that the only safe approach with hand held games would be the team play.

So, yeas go ahead and use advanced point count systems only if you are sure that you are executing it correctly (you will definitely make more money), but let me remind you ne more time, that extra profit is only obtained if you use system making aceptable amount of mistakes.
Otherwise, Hi-Lo is KING!

In my opinion, Uston APC and Hi-Opt II are the best advanced point count systems.

Any counting system you master will work just fine, so stick to one system that works best for you and that's all you will ever need. Most of discussions on counting systems are confusing and have only theoretical/ academical value.

Good Luck!

 

[aussiecounter]

Ah, my baited hook drew a response. Sorry about my last post though, I suppose that WAS a bit immature. I don't know if it is just me but you're wording or something just frustrated me.

I believe I did hold back on the :flame: , as I said it in the context of this being in the wrong section, and in general. Definitely in the first post anyway.

With regards to me trying to explain things you already know, WHY ASK ABOUT IT IF YOU ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT?!?!? You state that you understand the Law of Independant Trials, then you go on, IN THE SAME SENTANCE, to question it. If you understand the Law, and understand that it is a true Law, then you shouldn't have to ask those questions.

On your Martingale question. My first words on the topic:

The Martingale does not work for one simple reason, there is no guarantee that you will EVER get the win to get you out of your losing streak. This usually kills you when your bet gets bigger than the table limits.

To me, this is exactly WHY it doesnt work (If anyone has a better reason, feel free, but I believe it all comes back to this). Maybe I should have put it in BIG BOLD LETTERS too. I then went on to give an example of HOW. There isnt a Mathematical explanation I would think, it would have excellent odds of working (i.e. very low risk of ruin) if you had unlimited bankroll and no table limit. i.e. the odds of never getting the win are very, very small if you could go on for a hundred hands or more.

I admit to overlooking the variation reference, sorry. However, its my personal opinion that this shouldnt really be referred to as a Martingale "variation" anyway. Yes, it is defintely a negative progression, but what are the "rules" of the variation "system"? Is it a system? How much does he lose before betting to try to recoup? What does he do if he loses the $100 bet? The question you were asking using this example I believe I answered anyway; it all comes back to the Law of I.T., which you claim to understand yet refuse to accept at the same time.

 

[aussiecounter]

Now, to the points.

1. Below is a quote from your first post, paragraph 3 I believe. I put in these > < to mark first where you say you understand the Law, then you clearly question it. Or am I mistaken? Fair enough, you didn't say "That shouldn't work", but I thought it easier to use that as a generalism than to cut and paste a quote or something.

Okay, I remember reading a player about a player at a Roulette table where the table had hit red 9/10 times before he arrived. He continued to bet red and won but eventually broke even. He stated another gambler telling him he was dumb for continuing to bet red, to which he replied that >his odds for hitting black were 50/50 no matter what the previous outcomes were. (Law of independent trials) While I understand that,< >wouldn't you expect red and black to even out.....For example, if the game hit red 9 out of the last 10 times, wouldnt the odds be incredibly slim to hit red 16-18 out of 20? (.5 not red * .5 not red * .5 not red etc etc.) Wouldnt the odds be better for the game to even out somewhat?<

2. The only questions of mine I could find. (Below)
The first is kind of answered, but I questioned it as you continued to question things that are established (the Law of I.T. for example).
The second I don't believe was answered.
The third, I admit, may be answered by you saying your example was for a "variation". I admit I may have missed/overlooked this variation reference, but I don't think your example could really be called a variation of the Martingale anyway. Martingale is Martingale; your example takes variation a bit far for my liking. Why not just gamble all day, and then bet $10 more than what you have lost all up, is that a Martingale? (Getting off topic, that is another discussion altogether).

You are very confusing, are you sure you have a good understanding of blackjack, stats, math, and counting etc?
Do you know what the Martingale involves?
You say you bet 9 bets at $10 each and lost 9. How is this related to a Martingale?

3. I don't think I did really. I was just trying to help you out remember. My first post is most definitely not in that attitude, and the second I don't think is either, and was not intended to be. Cont. below.

4. Was mostly trying to provoke another response, because you hadn't replied for near 3 days. I guess it worked.

OK, thats enough arguing, I think we should both calm down a bit. I apologize if I seemed a bit agressive. I was just trying to help you, whether you believe that or not. I may have taken it a bit far.
There are a few interesting points we have brought up, like whether your example is a Martingale variation or not, Count assisted betting stratgies/progressions etc.
Feel free to continue with discussing those points if you are interested, and/or (try to ) rebuff these last two post of mine, but try not to provoke me too much (I know that might be a bit unfair of me to say that, but.... meh.)

I hope I haven't gotten you too far offside, as you seem pretty keen and would probably be a good addition to the forum, which has been pretty slow just lately.