Proposed New Tag Values - Comments and Beatings Welcome!

MountainMan

MountainMan

Well-Known Member
Consider these tag values:

A-X = 0,2,2,2,3,2,2,0,-1,-3. BE = 92; PE = 68; IC = 89.

Although it would be considered a level three count, most combinations net to zero or minus one. I believe this may be one of the most efficient but easy-to-use count systems.

I have not tried it in actual casino play, but will test it out soon
and report back if there is any interest in it.

I intend to use it to play double deck, where playing efficiency
may be more important.

I believe that the higher tag values will provide more accurate index play as well, however, others may disagree with my logic.

I will run some simulations vs. High Opt II, Zen, Canfield and Revere Point Count if anyone wants to know.

To my knowledge, these tag values are original to MountainMan. If anyone knows of any past posting or writings on these tag values, I would appreciate being made aware of the source.

MM
 
psyduck

psyduck

Well-Known Member
The performance would be almost identical to Uston APC system. The tag values may be unique, but I do not see improvement in overall performance.
 
Deathclutch

Deathclutch

Well-Known Member
This will work if you would like to use it, but you'd probably be better served trying to gain an edge in some other way than adding to your count.
 
MountainMan

MountainMan

Well-Known Member
Uston APC

psyduck said:
The performance would be almost identical to Uston APC system. The tag values may be unique, but I do not see improvement in overall performance.
Click to expand...
Which, in your opinion, would be easier to use? MM
 
MountainMan

MountainMan

Well-Known Member
Victor APC

jack said:
Its the VAPC

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Victor_APC_Card_Counting_System.htm
Click to expand...
JJ: It looks like I can't claim to be the originator, but I do think the system is a good one for all the reasons outlined in his article.

While it may seem more difficult to count, it is actually very simple. All "smalls" as he calls them have the same value. You don't need to differenciate between a two, three, four, six or seven.

I'm looking for a system to settle down with for the long haul. I think this one has merit. The other systems that work well for me are Zen and RPC, but I think I'll like this one the best. I need to play it awile in the casino to be sure. Thanks for your link. MM
 
iCountNTrack

iCountNTrack

Well-Known Member
MountainMan said:
Consider these tag values:

A-X = 0,2,2,2,3,2,2,0,-1,-3. BE = 92; PE = 68; IC = 89.

Although it would be considered a level three count, most combinations net to zero or minus one. I believe this may be one of the most efficient but easy-to-use count systems.

I have not tried it in actual casino play, but will test it out soon
and report back if there is any interest in it.

I intend to use it to play double deck, where playing efficiency
may be more important.

I believe that the higher tag values will provide more accurate index play as well, however, others may disagree with my logic.

I will run some simulations vs. High Opt II, Zen, Canfield and Revere Point Count if anyone wants to know.

To my knowledge, these tag values are original to MountainMan. If anyone knows of any past posting or writings on these tag values, I would appreciate being made aware of the source.

MM
Click to expand...
How about using a level II count such as Hi-Opt II instead

A-X = 0,1,1,2,2,1,1,0,0,-2. BE = 91; PE = 67; IC = 91
 
MountainMan

MountainMan

Well-Known Member
Ace Side Count

kewljason said:
You are side counting Aces, though, correct? To not do so gives up quite a bit in BC.
Click to expand...
Not currently side counting aces. Hope to do so when I find the system to use long term.
 
MountainMan

MountainMan

Well-Known Member
Hi-Opt II

iCountNTrack said:
How about using a level II count such as Hi-Opt II instead

A-X = 0,1,1,2,2,1,1,0,0,-2. BE = 91; PE = 67; IC = 91
Click to expand...
Hi-Opt II is nearly as good, just as hard to count. The VAPC is very slightly better. Why not use the better of the two? I comes down to ease of use for me. If it is easier, maybe I can side count aces too.
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
MountainMan said:
I don't seem to be able to handle two counts at one time, yet.
Click to expand...
If not, don't use an ace-neutral count and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. RPC or Zen or some variant there of are the way to go, if you want to count level 2.
 
Deathclutch

Deathclutch

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
If not, don't use an ace-neutral count and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. RPC or Zen or some variant there of are the way to go, if you want to count level 2.
Click to expand...
Why would he need the ace if he wants to count level 2? An ace neutral level 2 will still outperform an ace reckoned level 1. Of course he'd want to learn to eventually side count the ace, but it takes some time.
 
blackjack avenger

blackjack avenger

Well-Known Member
No Panacea

MountainMan said:
JJ:
I'm looking for a system to settle down with for the long haul. I think this one has merit. The other systems that work well for me are Zen and RPC, but I think I'll like this one the best. I need to play it awile in the casino to be sure. Thanks for your link. MM
Click to expand...
so you have already played with 2 of the better systems? Zen and RPC?
Yet, these were not sufficient for the long haul?
they worked well for you?
I would recommend you stay with whichever of the above systems that you already know and which you are most comfortanble with. If you want add a few more indices to make it stronger.:joker::whip:

Zen is possibly better for DD then RPC. It would possibly matter which indices you know for each system and if you use RA or grouped indices

To continue to switch between systems will increase error rate and waste time.

If you are taking time from playing to learn a new system then you are definately better off to stick with what you know
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
Deathclutch said:
Why would he need the ace if he wants to count level 2? An ace neutral level 2 will still outperform an ace reckoned level 1. Of course he'd want to learn to eventually side count the ace, but it takes some time.
Click to expand...
No, that is not true, not in a modern game at least. If you're using any significant spread, you are better off using High-Low than using HO2 without any kind of sidecount. There is really no place for HO2 without the sidecount, because if all you are interested in are PE and insurance there are better level 2 methods.
 
Deathclutch

Deathclutch

Well-Known Member
Well this is a fairly standard game that can be played. H17, 6 Deck, 1.5 decks cut off, DAS. Hi Opt II with no side count and only illustrious 18 and Hi Lo with illustrious 18. The canned Hi Opt II doesn't even have the insurance bet at the correct count to make full use of the high IC.

 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
MountainMan said:
Hi-Opt II is nearly as good, just as hard to count. The VAPC is very slightly better. Why not use the better of the two? I comes down to ease of use for me. If it is easier, maybe I can side count aces too.
Click to expand...
Remember the only thing that makes the VAPC easier is the card combinations. The fact, the ho2 is a 8 point count verses the VAPC 13 point count, will show when it comes to fast dealers and when adding your running counts together and making TC decisions. Dont let that article fool you, ho2 would be significantly easier to implement at the tables. Not to mention the indices would be easier to learn.

Yes, it is a more powerful count and i like it. I am a fan of multi-level counts. I would of used it myself, if i didnt have to relearn a ton of indices. If your interested in power, regardless of the worked involved or just for the thought of it, go for it. Heres a couple of other big guns, you may like.

2233210-1-3(-3+)

2334320-1-4(-4+)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top