best counting system for single/double deck? any advise?

[BULLSEYE21]

hello everybody!!what is the best counting system for single or double deck blackjack? i usually play a six deck shoe game and using Hi-Lo count because of its simplicity.so far it works for me.

the rules for double decks -dealer hits on soft 17,double after a split and on any two cards,no surrender.Deck penetration(they cut it in the middle)Is it worth the action?Is Hi-Lo count still effective on double deck blackjack? thanks in advance..

 

[Sonny]

the rules for double decks -dealer hits on soft 17,double after a split and on any two cards,no surrender.Deck penetration(they cut it in the middle)Is it worth the action?

Only 50% pen is almost never worth counting. You just aren't going to see enough positive counts to make it worthwhile.

Is Hi-Lo count still effective on double deck blackjack?

Sure, Hi-Lo will work for any number of decks.

-Sonny-

 

[jack.jackson]

hello everybody!!what is the best counting system for single or double deck blackjack? i usually play a six deck shoe game and using Hi-Lo count because of its simplicity.so far it works for me.

the rules for double decks -dealer hits on soft 17,double after a split and on any two cards,no surrender.Deck penetration(they cut it in the middle)Is it worth the action?Is Hi-Lo count still effective on double deck blackjack? thanks in advance..

Without multi-params or using a secondary count, but with a side count of aces( no multi-param ace side count) but, a assigned value ace sidecount. Then i believe this should answer your question.

              BC             PE         IC
            Betting       Playing      Ins.
  A    0     3.5(3)          1          2
             (3)            (0)        (0)
  2    2     
  3    2
  4    3               BC .997          (BC)  .9954
  5    3               PE .671          (PE)   .664
  6    2               IC .90           (IC)   .89
  7    1
  8    0
  9   -1
  X   -3

Bj math analyzer 3.5

 

[zengrifter]

Only 50% pen is almost never worth counting. You just aren't going to see enough positive counts to make it worthwhile.

50% 2D is OKAY with a big enough bet spread. zg

 

[jack.jackson]

Without multi-params or using a secondary count, but with a side count of aces( no multi-param ace side count) but, a assigned value ace sidecount. Then i believe this should answer your question.

              BC             PE         IC
            Betting       Playing      Ins.
  A    0     3.5(3)          1          2
             (3)            (0)        (0)
  2    2     
  3    2
  4    3               BC .997          (BC)  .9954
  5    3               PE .671          (PE)   .664
  6    2               IC .90           (IC)   .89
  7    1
  8    0
  9   -1
  X   -3

Bj math analyzer 3.5

As far as secondary counts go, this is the best one and easiest (5:2) as far as i can tell.
Note: The primary count is strictly for PE. The secondary count is the two counts we add together for the purpose of betting and insurance.
Also note: This is the RAPC when calculated for betting.

     Primary      Secondary
  A       0          -4
  2       2
  3       3                    BC.997
  4       3                   PE..68
  5       4                   IC..927
  6       3
  7       2
  8       0
  9      -1
  X      -4           1

 

[chichow]

50% 2D is OKAY with a big enough bet spread. zg

Define a big enough bet spread.

Anyone know what the pen for DD is MGM properties?

I played it before at NYNY and it seems that MGM uses a notch on the discard tray. It seems to be more than 50%, but I really can't tell as my desk estimation is not at the 1/5 deck level.

 

[Sonny]

The best counting system is the one that you can play the fastest while maintaining complete accuracy. That is why many people use very simple level-1 systems like Hi-Lo. It’s easy to use so you can play faster and longer. If you’re looking for a level-2 system then Zen and RAPC are two of the strongest. I used to use Hi-Opt II but switched to Zen because the ace side count was a waste.

-Sonny-

 

[Knox]

Define a big enough bet spread.

Anyone know what the pen for DD is MGM properties?

I played it before at NYNY and it seems that MGM uses a notch on the discard tray. It seems to be more than 50%, but I really can't tell as my desk estimation is not at the 1/5 deck level.

The MGM properties are notched at 64 cards, 61.5% penetration. I would say average is 60 cards, and 52 cards I would avoid unless it is the only game in town and you are bored.

Not to be rude, but did it ever occur to you to simply stand there and count how many cards were dealt before the shuffle card came out? LOL

 

[toastblows]

When i play SD i only track the 10 valued cards, so I can determine busts and 20s probabilities. personally tracking them all on 50% penetration SD doesnt seem to matter so i quit doing it.

 

[moo321]

As in almost all situations, but especially in single and double deck, you're much better off spending your time learning index plays, than using a complex count. Hi-lo with 18 indeces outperforms any complicated count without indeces. And full indeces gets much more powerful.

Now, of course you can always use a higher level count AND learn indeces, but I think it's too much work unless you're going to be a full-time pro for a long time. Most players who view this as a part time job (derive some income, but less than 30% of their income from it) would do fine with hi-lo and maybe 18 indeces.

 

[rdorange]

DD and Hi-opt I

what is the best counting system for single or double deck blackjack?

I only play DD pitch. I have been using the Hi-opt I. A little modified, but still effective. It is the simplest sytem for me. I'm not getting rich or making a living, but I am slightly ahead on my BJ.

 

[Beast]

Hi,

I use the Hi-Opt II and have been happy with it for years. If you are looking for the strongest count this is the one I would recommend. Sure, you need to side count the Aces to get the full power but nothing matches it's power. Sonny makes a good point the best system is the one you can play absolutely accurately! This is more important than any other consideration by a factor of 5 to 1 I would guess. Now, I see someone posted a 3 level count showing it is the strongest.....bahhhhh.. Do you know how hard it would be to count that?lol BTW, the Hi-Opt II is even with this count with the Ace sidecount. Just use the aces for playing not only for betting! This will gain you a couple of PE points on your Hard Doubles. Then, include it for your insurance which brings it's IC to .93. So you end up with a system that has a BC of .98, PE .69 and an IC of .93.

Good luck.

Beast

P.S. BTW, for those talented/motivated individuals out there you can side count the 7's too to up your PE to around .78 or so with the H/S adjustments.

 

[Beast]

Hi,

I think the Hi-Opt I is an excellent choice for pitch games especially if you are just starting out. Just try to buy a quality index generator like SBA to get the best numbers....the published numbers are not optimal. But, I guess you could say that for most counts. An exception to this are the numbers in Wong's book for the Hi-Lo or Snyder's publication of the Red Seven.

If you are absolutely wanting the strongest system, but don't want to go to a two level count the K-O true counted is by far the best. It is equal to the Zen. With a side count of Aces or 7's it is equal to the Hi-Opt II. I actually considered switching to this system because of the simplicity, but don't like the negative numbers....you have to start your running count by saying -4 times the number of decks. The thing I really like about this count is you can use the running count for betting in single deck.

Good luck.

Beast

 

[Knox]

Hi,

you have to start your running count by saying -4 times the number of decks.
Beast

Says who? I start the IRC at zero for all number of decks with KO and it works fine. Sure, the key count and pivot point are different, but remember 3 sets of those (SD, DD, 6D) is easy. I also find this makes true count conversions easier. Just starting to dabble in that for betting purposes, then looking to explore effect on index plays.

 

[jack.jackson]

Hi,

I use the Hi-Opt II and have been happy with it for years. If you are looking for the strongest count this is the one I would recommend. Sure, you need to side count the Aces to get the full power but nothing matches it's power. Sonny makes a good point the best system is the one you can play absolutely accurately! This is more important than any other consideration by a factor of 5 to 1 I would guess. Now, I see someone posted a 3 level count showing it is the strongest.....bahhhhh.. Do you know how hard it would be to count that?lol BTW, the Hi-Opt II is even with this count with the Ace sidecount. Just use the aces for playing not only for betting! This will gain you a couple of PE points on your Hard Doubles. Then, include it for your insurance which brings it's IC to .93. So you end up with a system that has a BC of .98, PE .69 and an IC of .93.

Good luck.

Beast

P.S. BTW, for those talented/motivated individuals out there you can side count the 7's too to up your PE to around .78 or so with the H/S adjustments.

With all due respest, not only will A02 match its power it will exceed it, when adding ace multiparams A02s PE will be higher than hi-opts because the nine slighty helps PE. So its safe say that not only can you bring A02s PE up to .69 you can also bring the BC. 991. IC .89. On top of that you can use a secondary to bring the BC up to ..998+ and side counts 7 and 8 seperately and bring your PE to .90 If you wanna talk hard(lol)

As far as the level 3 count goes, You can also bring its PE up .69 if you wanna talk ace multi-parameters. This would give it a .69 .997 .90 . Hard yes, very hard, from the moment i woke up, to the moment i went to sleep, for ten years straight.From Continous blisters on my thumbs from shuffling. All the way to a mild-sezieure from practicing 36 hrs straight on nights..

Ive found one i can use easily, shuffle track, and hole card all that same! Hard??? Hard, is only as hard as your willing to work for it. The darks of my eyes will tell you that.
So ya, you guys are right when you a system is only as good as you can use it. This is why ive been practicin for twelve years straight and have plans for another 6 before i even set foot inside a casino.

PS You wanna see hard, see OSR 99.9 and ABA l4, holmes.

 

[Knox]

Jack, you have to be kidding?!? What keeps you going?

 

[Beast]

Hi,

You cannot use the 7 and 8 sidecounts to get a PE of .90 for any count...Period. The next best card to count besides the 7 for playing is the 6 which was proven by John Imming back in the early 90's. This is because the 6 "interferes" with the 7 less than any other card. Now, you can count 5,6,7,8,9, etc and get that .90 PE.

Before you start telling someone about something make sure you know what you are talking about.

Good luck.

Beast

 

[jack.jackson]

Hi,

You cannot use the 7 and 8 sidecounts to get a PE of .90 for any count...Period. The next best card to count besides the 7 for playing is the 6 which was proven by John Imming back in the early 90's. This is because the 6 "interferes" with the 7 less than any other card. Now, you can count 5,6,7,8,9, etc and get that .90 PE.

Before you start telling someone about something make sure you know what you are talking about.

Good luck.

Beast

The proper way to handle such cards is to give them a value (+) (-) that reflects their average value , as we have done in the omega 11 count, and then keep a side count of each of them (7,8,9)and adjust the main count depending on the situation and the relative excess or shortage of these cards in the remaining deck. With this tecnique it is possible to bring the PE up to an ideal count up to .95. And this was proved by BRYCE CARLSON. 1995. Page 63.

And the 9 has the less effect.
PS. I dont need luck!:grin:

 

[Beast]

Hi,

The "Universal Blackjack Engine" by John Imming says otherwise. These are not theorital values but gathered through simulations the same way index numbers are derived. Your logic sounds the same as Humble's from the 70's which is just wrong. The 7 adds roughly 13% to the PE no matter what count as proven by simulations. The 6 adds 7 or 8% and together with the 7 adds roughly 20% and are the best two cards to side count for playing giving that the count is not an Ace-included count. In that case the Ace adds about the same as the 7 or about 12%. You can throw away the book. It's like deriving multiparameter adjusts on paper. Sure, you can improve your play, but you will not get close the results of simulated numbers. I was lucky enough to get a copy of Imming's software right before he went into seclusion and have enjoyed running sims. For instance, the Hi-Opt II with 7 side count (no ace) is equal to the Halves for a shoe game.

Hope this clears up everything.

Beast

 

[jack.jackson]

Hi,

The "Universal Blackjack Engine" by John Imming says otherwise. These are not theorital values but gathered through simulations the same way index numbers are derived. Your logic sounds the same as Humble's from the 70's which is just wrong. The 7 adds roughly 13% to the PE no matter what count as proven by simulations. The 6 adds 7 or 8% and together with the 7 adds roughly 20% and are the best two cards to side count for playing giving that the count is not an Ace-included count. In that case the Ace adds about the same as the 7 or about 12%. You can throw away the book. It's like deriving multiparameter adjusts on paper. Sure, you can improve your play, but you will not get close the results of simulated numbers. I was lucky enough to get a copy of Imming's software right before he went into seclusion and have enjoyed running sims. For instance, the Hi-Opt II with 7 side count (no ace) is equal to the Halves for a shoe game.

Hope this clears up everything.

Beast

Well if you want to say carlson is wrong thats fine with me . But carlson is one the most highly respected players in the game itself. And in case you didnt know his real job is designing computer programs and has been for thirty plus years. So say what you want, but im gonna stick with what one the worlds greatest blackjack players and software programers has said. As many others big name players will say the same thing.
Oh and PS. Even arnold snyder himself said A02 is the king of L2s Pure and simple!
And ill be more than happy to post this!