Counter BS - Forget the I-18?

X

xengrifter

Banned
This alternative BS will afford a novice counter the same gain as the I-18 (90+% of it?)...
... Using it only requires one index, insurance.

CBS-FULL.png
 
Last edited:
BJgenius007 said:
It means when you bet big, your action is always right. You might take the wrong action but only when you bet one bit.
Click to expand...
I'm now more confused than ever!...Are you saying get the money out there at the right time using the count, and then just use basic strategy to play the hand, sans any indices?....Because the "Count Weighted" chart is basically just Basic Strategy!....And what do you mean by "when you bet one bit"
 
A count weighted basic strategy would be good for a big player call in. They can just revert to that strategy instead of relying on a signal for each hand.
Then the only signal they will need is an insurance signal which should be pretty easy to manage.
A call-in signal and an insurance signal, then a signal to get up. Easy.
 
JohnCrover said:
A count weighted basic strategy would be good for a big player call in. They can just revert to that strategy instead of relying on a signal for each hand.
Then the only signal they will need is an insurance signal which should be pretty easy to manage.
A call-in signal and an insurance signal, then a signal to get up. Easy.
Click to expand...
What you just said above makes little sense to me?....And you did not address any of my query's on the matter?
 
ronster, counter basic strategy is designed in a way that any bigger bet you make is always making the correct choice decision and any time you make the wrong decision you will only have a one unit bet out on the felt. The loss of EV by making the wrong play is small not only because of the one unit bet but because a good counter will often Wong out in negative counts that the counter would be making the wrong play. The house will see that you play the same hand (such as a hard 16 vs a 10 upcard) 100% of the time the same exact way which makes it harder to detect the counter.
 
Last edited:
xengrifter said:
Doesn't anybody wish to debate this?
Click to expand...

What's there to debate? The statement is categorically false. Einstein once said: "Everything should be as simple as possible but not simpler." If you could get exactly the same gain from playing in one fixed way instead of varying play according to indices, no one would ever use indices.

Don
 
BoSox said:
ronster, counter basic strategy is designed in a way that any bigger bet you make is always making the correct choice decision and any time you make the wrong decision you will only have a one unit bet out on the felt. The loss of EV by making the wrong play is small not only because of the one unit bet but because a good counter will often Wong out in negative counts that the counter would be making the wrong play. The house will see that you play the same hand (such as a hard 16 vs a 10 upcard) 100% of the time the same exact way which makes it harder to detect the counter.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply Bo, but I have no idea what you are talking about; and don't get me wrong, I've been doing this AP counting thing since the early 70's, so I'm far from being a "newbie"...The "counter basic strategy" is but a semi-clone of Basic Strategy as far as I can decipher.....ronster
 
Of course Don is correct in that optimal stratey play, will yield the higher return....ON PAPER (and simulations).

The argument would be that a counter's basic strategy type approach will increase longevity. So if you add all that extra play then this becomes The best approach.

I happen to agree with this reasoning but it is subjective with no real way to prove.
 
ronster said:
Thank you for your reply Bo, but I have no idea what you are talking about; and don't get me wrong, I've been doing this AP counting thing since the early 70's, so I'm far from being a "newbie"...The "counter basic strategy" is but a semi-clone of Basic Strategy as far as I can decipher.....ronster
Click to expand...
No, there are built in deviations that make it the correct play when it matters. An example is the double 8 vs 5 and 6; the 9v2; 16v10; A8 v5 etc
 
KewlJ said:
Of course Don is correct in that optimal stratey play, will yield the higher return....ON PAPER (and simulations).

The argument would be that a counter's basic strategy type approach will increase longevity. So if you add all that extra play then this becomes The best approach.

I happen to agree with this reasoning but it is subjective with no real way to prove.
Click to expand...

So why haven't you played that way for the last ten years?

Don
 
Funny to see this discussion NINETEEN years after Hal Marcus presented his paper on CBS (which I edited for him, and in which numerous references are made to me and the I18)) with charts and analyses. SCORE wasn't discussed at the time, but I18 win rate in a 6-deck game with 16 to 1 spread was 12.5% higher than CBS. I'll leave it to someone else to run sims today to see difference in SCORE.

Don
 
DSchles said:
So why haven't you played that way for the last ten years?

Don
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of CBS for the entire last 10 years. I don't know exactly when I learned of it, but when I did I incorporated it into my play. I have a good friend that works the pit that shortly after I moved to Vegas, told me that how a player played certain hands, like 16 vs 10, insurance and a few others, was a big tell if he was a counter. So when I came across CBS, that really seemed to solve that problem.

Again, I can't definitively say just how much that has helped me longevity-wise, but I honestly feel it has helped and at minimal cost.
 
KewlJ said:
Again, I can't definitively say just how much that has helped me longevity-wise, but I honestly feel it has helped and at minimal cost.
Click to expand...

Of course, the cost of using CBS was cut to a minimum in your case as not everyone can Wong out and back into another table in a flash of a second.;)
 
BoSox said:
Of course, the cost of using CBS was cut to a minimum in your case as not everyone can Wong out and back into another table in a flash of a second.;)
Click to expand...
This is true, but I still think it is worthwhile for many players, who play a good deal. It removes some of those "tells".
 
KJ, one of these days, I am going to invent and patent a flexible periscope for card counters to keep an eye out on other tables.
 
KewlJ said:
This is true, but I still think it is worthwhile for many players, who play a good deal. It removes some of those "tells".
Click to expand...
Wouldn't a smaller bet spread and deviating accurately provide more longevity, which by proxy more EV hours? A semi retired pro is a gaming manager here and we talk shop a lot. He told me on Saturday they had backed off and trespassed a guy backcounting. That's all I do there and I'll be there in 6 hours, playing rated. They fill my gas tank and feed me grapes. It's not a bad gig worth between $12.00 and $25.00 an hour red chipping. That may not make your noodle wet but I haven't had to work a real job 5 or 6 years.

Saturday I split 10's to 3 hands in front of a retired MIT guy who partners with this same gaming manager. They manage the count team at the "blah blah blah". A ploppie at the table says, "That's a new one to me. He can do that?" He replied, "Yea, he can split up to 4 hands. That's an advanced play. You normally wouldn't do that, but it's the correct play right now."

I dont know where that other guy is today, but my gas tank is full and the pizza was phenomenal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top