Newbie looking for advice on count systems

FLASH1296 said:
At all games, all sets of rules, penetration, etc. ZEN always handily outperforms Hi-Lo and ALL other Level One counts. That is NOT debatable.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, Mr Flash. If the final jury is a simulation, then yes, agreed, Zen outperforms all level one counts. However what the simulation fails to take into account is 1.) additional mistakes made by playing a level 2 vs level 1 count. (yes, I know, we all think we are so good and never make any mistakes, but I have news for you, we are all human and the best of us still make mistakes, we may not even realize, at even the simplest counts.) So again, eactaly how much does the error rate increase? 2.) If we are able to play the higher level count at or close to the same efficency, what about the extra effort involved. You may think you can play it as effortlessly as level one, but it is unlikely. Maybe the player gets fatigued a little quicker, at which time if he didn't stop playing sooner, those mistakes would really start to add up, or maybe the extra effort and concentration involved causes a player to miss other advantage play opportunities that he otherwise wouldn't. :eek: ;) or be less aware of external factors happening around him (like heat). These factors can't be measured in the simulation results, so in the world of simulation, yes we can predict the winner. In the real world of play, it's not so cut and dry, imho, and the so the debate rages on. :cool:
 
.
.
.

Jason,

We are free to differ with all and everything.

That is one of the reasons we are here.

.
.
.
 
FLASH1296 said:
.
.
.

Jason,

We are free to differ with all and everything.

That is one of the reasons we are here.

.
.
.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Flash, and I am not meaning to stir up this old debate once again. It most definately is a personal choice. There has to be some form of measuring stick, and computer simulations are the best method we have. I am just saying they don't take everything into account. :rolleyes:

The majority of sucessful card counting teams that I have read about, used level 1 counts. Most of these players had a very high level of inteligents and practiced a great deal of time, with many checkouts prior to play. They placed their emphasis on near perfect play of a simple count over a higher perhaps more accurate count that could yeild better results. And as I say, these people where a lot smarter than me, so I figure if it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me. :laugh:
 
Team Play, utilizing “Big Players” need to know when to plunk down the BIG money; thus Betting Correlation trumps all else.

The overall team result is totally dependent on a rather limited number of huge bets — made only at significantly high True Counts.

Ergo, Hi-Lo is a fine choice.
 
FLASH1296 said:
Team Play, utilizing “Big Players” need to know when to plunk down the BIG money; thus Betting Correlation trumps all else.

The overall team result is totally dependent on a rather limited number of huge bets — made only at significantly high True Counts.

Ergo, Hi-Lo is a fine choice.
Click to expand...

All true, but if a level two count increases results by up to 10% as shown in simulations and often stated in these discussions, wouldn't teams still increase their performance by 10% by using a more accurate count that could identify even more opportunities to 'plunk down the big money' ? I mean we are talking big money here. If a team wins two million over some period of time, we are talking an additional 200 grand! :eek: By not pursuing such, leads me to beleive that their consensus is that this additional gain, which is "not debatable" in the world of simulations does not translate entirely into the world of actual play.
 
Last edited:
Accuracy and Consistency among spotters and other team members is crucial.

Hi-Lo’s simplicity and ease of use is paramount here.
 
kewljason said:
All true, but if a level two count increases results by up to 10% as shown in simulations and often stated in these discussions, wouldn't teams still increase their performance by 10% by using a more accurate count that could identify even more opportunities to 'plunk down the big money' ? I mean we are talking big money here. If a team wins two million over some period of time, we are talking an additional 200 grand! :eek: By not pursuing such, leads me to believe that their consensus is that this additional gain, which is "not debatable" in the world of simulations does not translate entirely into the world of actual play.
Click to expand...

Kewl and Flash, I think you will find the "ease of use" judgement will differ greatly among people with different "gifts". Personally I don't see any difference in difficulty between level one and level two..(I've used (use) both and personally prefer the level 2 count.). I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or tenacity ... just the differences in the way we are wired.
 
daddybo said:
Kewl and Flash, I think you will find the "ease of use" judgement will differ greatly among people with different "gifts". Personally I don't see any difference in difficulty between level one and level two..(I've used (use) both and personally prefer the level 2 count.). I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or tenacity ... just the differences in the way we are wired.
Click to expand...
Excuse me! I'd like to borrow some of your wires. :grin::whip:
 
Different

daddybo said:
Kewl and Flash, I think you will find the "ease of use" judgement will differ greatly among people with different "gifts". Personally I don't see any difference in difficulty between level one and level two..(I've used (use) both and personally prefer the level 2 count.). I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or tenacity ... just the differences in the way we are wired.
Click to expand...

Over the years I have played with many skilled players using many different counts, and my Hi-LO has always performed just as good, or maybe even better than all the rest. :cool: One gent I played with out of Chicago impressed me greatly with his Silver Fox count and his prediction of getting BJ's, maybe he was lucky, ;) but after that I came up with HI-LO-LO for DD. The other gent that impressed me greatly was D-BO, but the only reason for that is.....well....HE IS Superman!!:laugh:

CP
 
Last edited:
daddybo said:
Kewl and Flash, I think you will find the "ease of use" judgement will differ greatly among people with different "gifts". Personally I don't see any difference in difficulty between level one and level two..(I've used (use) both and personally prefer the level 2 count.). I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or tenacity ... just the differences in the way we are wired.
Click to expand...

Very definately daddybo. I also have used both in the past, before going back to a level one. It just free's me up to do a side count and some other 'casual AP moves' that I probably couldn't with a level two or three count. That's just me though. I am slow and stupid. Everyone is different. I think the most important thing is to find 'your' count and play it to the best of your ability. I was just giving, Flash a hard time about his "NOT debatable" comment, which of course has and will continue to be debated. :laugh:
 
Last edited:
daddybo said:
GEEZ CP! :whip::whip::laugh::eyepatch: NOT Hardly.
Click to expand...
I can see it coming from zg, because for him everyone is God. But CP?

I think he means it as a figure of speech, as in, "He plays like God!" Irreverent, but meant innocently enough.

CP:whip::whip::whip::laugh::laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top