Proposed New Tag Values - Comments and Beatings Welcome!

[MountainMan]

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]

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]

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.

 

[jack.jackson]

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.

Its the VAPC

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Victor_APC_Card_Counting_System.htm

 

[Automatic Monkey]

So you want to use a fancy count?

Try this one:

Main count: 0,0,1,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2
Sidecount: A= -2, 2 & 3 = +1

 

[MountainMan]

Uston APC

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.

Which, in your opinion, would be easier to use? MM

 

[MountainMan]

Victor APC

Its the VAPC

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Victor_APC_Card_Counting_System.htm

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

 

[MountainMan]

Side Count

Try this one:

Main count: 0,0,1,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2
Sidecount: A= -2, 2 & 3 = +1

I don't seem to be able to handle two counts at one time, yet.

 

[iCountNTrack]

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

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

 

[kewljason]

I don't seem to be able to handle two counts at one time, yet.

You are side counting Aces, though, correct? To not do so gives up quite a bit in BC.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Halves

I am biased:joker::whip:

 

[MountainMan]

Ace Side Count

You are side counting Aces, though, correct? To not do so gives up quite a bit in BC.

Not currently side counting aces. Hope to do so when I find the system to use long term.

 

[MountainMan]

Hi-Opt II

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

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.

 

[Deathclutch]

You are side counting Aces, though, correct? To not do so gives up quite a bit in BC.

The increase in PE and IC will more than make up for the lowered BC.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I don't seem to be able to handle two counts at one time, yet.

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]

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.

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]

No Panacea

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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+)