Does learning more advance count increase your odd's of winning.

[krazyplaya]

Hi everyone for the last six month's i have been using the basic hi-low counting
system. So far i have found no success what so ever with the system, i feel personally i am not gaining much advantage over the house. I feel at best i might be even, and this is counting no varience involved. So i am deciding to learn a higher counting system.

I would like to know which system allows me the best over all advantage
over the house and why, also what system has everyone tried and personally
find successful themselves?

 

[ArcticInferno]

I, and countless others, have used Hi-Lo with great success.
Different systems yield different win rates. However, they all work.
If you can't properly employ Hi-Lo and win, then you won't be able
to benefit from other systems.
Practice using the computer simulation. It's like a video game.

 

[Play safe]

Hi everyone for the last six month's i have been using the basic hi-low counting
system. So far i have found no success what so ever with the system, i feel personally i am not gaining much advantage over the house. I feel at best i might be even, and this is counting no varience involved. So i am deciding to learn a higher counting system.

I would like to know which system allows me the best over all advantage
over the house and why, also what system has everyone tried and personally
find successful themselves?

I'm getting some good results from Hi-lo.
Are you playing any good games and are you using any basic strategy variations?

 

[ArcticInferno]

The Hi-Lo system will work even in games with lousy rules,
and even without applying basic strategy deviations.
It's clearly stated in Standford Wong's book, and I agree.
That's how powerful Hi-Lo is.
Computer simulations have demonstrated that different
counting system have little difference in 6-deck games.

 

[kewljason]

This is a topic that is often debated on this forum. I personally agree that it matters little in multideck games, however disagree with ArticInferno's comment about computer simulations. Simulations do show an increase in results! I am just not convinced that this translates into the real world. One or two additional small mistakes an hour will wipe out any advantage gained by a more powerful count and then some. Plus a simulation doesn't tell you at what point you really become fatigued and start to make additional mistakes. Maybe you reach that point at 200 hands with Hi-lo while its 150 hands with a slightly more taxing count. What about if you miss the dealer flashed card because it took you an extra milisecond to compute the true count? This opportunity isn't measured as well. For 6 and 8 deck games I believe the more important thing is playing your count as well as you can. Playing near perfect hi-lo is better than playing a stronger count less acurately. Before anyone jumps on me, remember this is my opinion concerning multideck games. Single and even double deck games a stronger count, played well, makes more of a difference.

Now back to the OP. A couple things. 1.) "I feel at best I might be even" You don't know? not keeping records? how can you hope to accurately compare anything if you don't keep records? 2.) "and this is counting no variance involved" What does this mean?

 

[Canceler]

Now back to the OP. A couple things. 1.) "I feel at best I might be even" You don't know? not keeping records? how can you hope to accurately compare anything if you don't keep records? 2.) "and this is counting no variance involved" What does this mean?

Shoot, you beat me to it!

 

[21gunsalute]

"and this is counting no variance involved" What does this mean?

I think he means he's not varying his bets, which would explain why he's had no success.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Lower Level Count = More Errors

A higher level counts tags match up better with the actual value of each card removed. This is why higher level counts are superior. They don't have as much built in error. Any thoughts otherwise that a simpler count is superior are just a matter of opinion and could be wrong.

If one uses an optimal bet ramp and resizes their bank frequently on wins and losses the superior count really starts to overwhelm the weaker one.:joker::whip:

 

[Nynefingers]

I think he means he's not varying his bets, which would explain why he's had no success.

I took it to mean no playing variations (index plays). Obviously his post was unclear.

 

[rukus]

A higher level counts tags match up better with the actual value of each card removed. This is why higher level counts are superior. They don't have as much built in error. Any thoughts otherwise that a simpler count is superior are just a matter of opinion and could be wrong.

If one uses an optimal bet ramp and resizes their bank frequently on wins and losses the superior count really starts to overwhelm the weaker one.:joker::whip:

Agreed here. IF you can handle level 2 with no mistakes, it will outperform nicely. Not just in a sim by %IBA, but in actual $won. As I've posted before, because a level 2 identifies more advantageous situations better, you can put more money down on the table at any given time (for some constant ror). So the higher %iba compounds with higher dollars on table to give a nice $ boost. It is akin to shuffle tracking vs straight counting. Though a sim might show ST giving only a small % iba boost, because you identify more advantageous situations more often, you can put more money, leading to a higher win rate for the same ror.

Again, as i think everyone agrees, ONLY if you can handle a level 2 will it bring the above advantages.

For the op: i wouldn't try a higher level count until you can demonstrate that a level one works for you. Ppl here can help you get it to work for you. Start by clarifying what you mean by no variance. Then post the types of games you play.