Best system for these decks

A

Adam

New Member
Hi,

I am currently reading "the worlds greatest blackjack book" and it states not to bother counting when dealing with 6 deck games... why is this?

I am also hoping you can suggest the best system for
4 Decks?
6 Decks?
7 Decks?
8 Decks?

What is the best system for each of the above? and can counting 6 and 8 decks be as profitable as counting 4?

thanks
 
I have that book and I am sure you are reading that wrong. The fewer decks the more important playing efficiency is. As the number of decks in a shoe grows the more important bet correlation is.

If you read it right the book is wrong. Profitability depends on rules, penetration and number of decks. An 8 deck game can be very profitable with the right rules and penetration. A single or double deck could be not worth playing with the wrong rules and penetration.
 
During the 1970's — when this classic book was published,

casinos had only recently gone from 2 decks to 4 decks; and

6 decks were seen as an extreme measure. 8 deck shoes did not yet exist.
 
thanks I only just realised the book was published in 1980 :rolleyes:

Im going to buy the K-O blackjack book, is this recommended for 6 and 8 deck games?

Thanks again
 

In My Opinion, K.O. sux big-time.

Some amateurs here will say that I am wrong, (or worse),

but they are willing to mislead others by selling them on the

idea that a Level One "unbalanced" count is a plausible way to go.

It isn't.

I strongly suggest Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder,

which offers several simple counts for those who believe that there is

such a thing as a "free lunch". It also contains the ZEN COUNT,

A Professional Level count — that is all that you will ever need.

Go To > http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ30782081

 
Last edited:
Adam - KO should be fine. I used it on 6 and 8 deck games for a few years before switching to HiLo. My reqson for switching had nothing to do with KO's results, but the fact I would be using a HiLo-like system for some other games and wanted to be consistent all around.

KO has been validated by several well-respected BJ math guys.
 

While I truly like "21forme" as a person, I reserve the right to respectfully disagree with him — and all those who hold the same position — one that I deem indefensible.

I shall refrain altogether from arguing this matter.
 
LIsten to flash

Flash knows his blackjack. I would follow his advice if I were you unless you are not capable of the task at hand. Sounds like the book he recommended has uses for many different ability levels.
 
Flash,

I know you highly recommend Zen count. However, in my own simulations, I still fail to see Zen has higher playing efficiency than my own HiLo for the 6-deck shoe game I play. I used flat bet to elimilate the contribution of betting efficiency. Indeces were used for playing including insurance and surrendering.

I still do not understand why. Until I see better playing efficiency of Zen for the shoe game, I do not plan to switch to Zen.
 
psyduck said:
Flash,

I know you highly recommend Zen count. However, in my own simulations, I still fail to see Zen has higher playing efficiency than my own HiLo for the 6-deck shoe game I play. I used flat bet to elimilate the contribution of betting efficiency. Indeces were used for playing including insurance and surrendering.

I still do not understand why. Until I see better playing efficiency of Zen for the shoe game, I do not plan to switch to Zen.
Click to expand...

There is your problem. Betting the right size when you have an advantage is due to BC. Winning that bet more often is due to PE. Try again realizing that the affect of PE to an AP is not based on flat betting.

PS you do realize the TC is not the RC/(number of unseen decks) in Zen.
 
Last edited:

If you check in QFIT's Modern Blackjack you will disabuse yourself of the counter-intuitive (and demonstrably false)
notion that ANY Level One count can out-perform ANY Level Two count re: Playing Efficiency. Thank me later.
 
Last edited:
Tarzan count

The Tarzan count is the ultimate but... you need to own a chimpanzee in order to do it correctly.
 
tthree said:
There is your problem. Betting the right size when you have an advantage is due to BC. Winning that bet more often is due to PE. Try again realizing that the affect of PE to an AP is not based on flat betting.

PS you do realize the TC is not the RC/(number of unseen decks) in Zen.
Click to expand...

Now you got me confused.

Are you saying a system with higher PE will not show the effect if flat betting? How do you simulate the effect of PE then? If you ramp the bet, you will have the contribution of BC too, right?

How is TC calculated in Zen system if it is not RC/unseen decks?
 
FLASH1296 said:

If you check in QFIT's Modern Blackjack you will disabuse yourself of the counter-intuitive (and demonstrably false)
notion that ANY Level One count can out-perform ANY Level Two count re: Playing Efficiency. Thank me later.
Click to expand...

Flash,

I do not doubt Zen has higher PE. The problem is I cannot see it in my own simulation. How does one simulate the PE alone? I thought one needs to use flat bet to eliminate the contribution of BC.
 
Last edited:
KO is fine. I use it with good results. But don't take my word for it. Grosjean, a highly respected AP uses it as well, for the simple reason that it frees one up to concentrate on other AP plays, such as hole carding and shuffle tracking. Also, it is very simple to apply error free, which is not true of more complex counts. Also, as you advance, you can learn to true up your running counts (I do so at key points) so that you approximate the results of other more complex counts. God help me if I don't make a few extra dollars an hour that a more complex count might provide, that is, if the more complex count does not generate more errors. KO will get you into the money-- that's what counts. Don't believe anyone who says otherwise.
 
aslan said:
Grosjean, a highly respected AP uses it as well, for the simple reason that it frees one up to concentrate on other AP plays, such as hole carding and shuffle tracking.
Click to expand...

This is one of the other not often mentioned benefits of a simpler count. I like to spend 20% of my brainpower actually counting, and 80% of time on everything else.

Also, if your good with numbers and calculating, then go for a higher level count, if it comes easy to you. If your not, like me, stick with a simpler count. Nuff said.
 

Nobody in their right mind utilizes the silly "TRUE EDGE" method [of rounded T.C.'s].

Snyder swiftly reacted to the storm of protest by publishing on-line a set of normally derived indices.
 

Re: comment above on ... simplicity ... count ...20% … etc.

I prefer to multi-task with a Level Two count and Side Count(s).
 
psyduck said:
Now you got me confused.

Are you saying a system with higher PE will not show the effect if flat betting? How do you simulate the effect of PE then? If you ramp the bet, you will have the contribution of BC too, right?

How is TC calculated in Zen system if it is not RC/unseen decks?
Click to expand...

Zen indices are based on true edge => RC/(4*number of remaining decks)

Flash says there are also TC indices besides the original true edge indices. I dont know which you are using.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top