Red Seven Indices

WABJ11

WABJ11

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
Are there any other indices to remember for the Red Seven count besides insurance at 0 (+2 for shoe games), stand on 16 v 10 at 0, stand on 15 vs 10 at +2, stand on 12 v 3 at 0, stand on 12 v 2 at +2, and double 10 v X at +2.

I would like to learn a few more but cant seem to find them, not even in his book.
 
Last edited:
P

PierceNation

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
There are minimal indices with Red Seven, my edition of BBiB has only a handfull aswell.

If you are finding Red Seven easy enough to want to expand the indices, I would recommend using the time and effort to learn a stronger count, maybe HiLo (Wongs version not Snyders)

Pierce
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#3
#3
WABJ11 said:
Are there any other indices to remember for the Red Seven count besides insurance at 0 (+2 for shoe games), stand on 16 v 10 at 0, stand on 15 vs 10 at +2, stand on 12 v 3 at 0, stand on 12 v 2 at +2, and double 10 v X at +2.

I would like to learn a few more but cant seem to find them, not even in his book.
Click to expand...
Easy to approximate as many as you want - start with HiLo top20 and adjust for the imbalance. zg

EDIT: Oops, I was thinking TR7 (true-counted), which edges out HiLo.
 
Last edited:
WABJ11

WABJ11

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
zengrifter said:
Easy to approximate as many as you want - start with HiLo top20 and adjust for the imbalance. zg

EDIT: Oops, I was thinking TR7 (true-counted), which edges out HiLo.
Click to expand...
:confused:

But I do like the Ron Paul banner!
 
P

PierceNation

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
I think what zg was saying is that the true counted version of Red Seven outperforms HiLo and you can use the HiLo indices providing you adjust them for the imbalance of your RS count.

I'm not sure where you can get the True Counted Red Seven from though. Anybody else know?
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#7
#7
PierceNation said:
I think what zg was saying is that the true counted version of Red Seven outperforms HiLo and you can use the HiLo indices providing you adjust them for the imbalance of your RS count.

I'm not sure where you can get the True Counted Red Seven from though. Anybody else know?
Click to expand...
Correct, and you answered the question - start with HiLo indices and adjust them for the extra +2/deck. zg
 
R

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
WABJ11 said:
Are there any other indices to remember for the Red Seven count besides insurance at 0 (+2 for shoe games), stand on 16 v 10 at 0, stand on 15 vs 10 at +2, stand on 12 v 3 at 0, stand on 12 v 2 at +2, and double 10 v X at +2. I would like to learn a few more but cant seem to find them, not even in his book.
Click to expand...
Take the KISS index charts from page 155 of Blackjack Bluebook II, adjust the numbers downward by 21 points for the shoe game (due to an IRC of "9" rather than "-12") and use all 22 indices. The two counts are so similar that their indices are basically interchangeable.

PS - or you may want to just revise your IRC to "9" and not deal with negative running counts. An RC of "20" is your Key Count (+1.3 to +1.8 TC) and your pivot is "21" (always +2.0 TC).
 
Last edited:
W

winnawinna

Well-Known Member
#9
#9
I swear by the R7 cause its easy to use and is very close to even Level 2 counts. Here is a link to a true-counted R7. You use the running counts and the deks that have been played and you will get a true count.. For example: a RC of +3 with 3 decks played gives you a TC of +3; a RC of 6 w/ 4 decks played gives you a TC of +4; a RC of +9 with 5 decks played gives you a TC of +5. Then you simply use the Hi-Lo indices.

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/membr1.htm
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#10
#10
Renzey said:
Take the KISS index charts from page 155 of Blackjack Bluebook II, adjust the numbers downward by 21 points for the shoe game (due to an IRC of "9" rather than "-12") and use all 22 indices. The two counts are so similar that their indices are basically interchangeable.

PS - or you may want to just revise your IRC to "9" and not deal with negative running counts. An RC of "20" is your Key Count (+1.3 to +1.8 TC) and your pivot is "21" (always +2.0 TC).
Click to expand...
YES. That's the ticket. zg

ps - ques for Fred: WHY does the KC and IRC and Pivot change for two counts so similar?
 
R

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
zengrifter said:
YES. That's the ticket. ques for Fred: WHY does the KC and IRC and Pivot change for two counts so similar?
Click to expand...
Zen,
Beginning with the IRC, it is an arbitrary starting point. Arnold chose a zero running count to be his universal pivot (the point at which the RC is always equal to +2.0 TC) . That dictated that the IRC be -12 for the six deck shoe.
Then, keeping things super-simple, he made that same zero running count his Key Count, since +2.0 TC isn't a bad place to begin ramping up the bets. Remember, this count came out before KO, before UBZ and before KISS. It's key hallmark was simplicity as compared to the standard Hi/Lo balanced count. I'm sure nobody knew in 1982 that it would perform as well as it does.

Building on that same genre of counting method (level 1 count with a +2.0 TC pivot), two improvements seemed readily available.
The first would be to move the IRC forward to a positive number that would seldom if ever encounter negative running counts -- additional simplicity.
The second was the finding thru sims that a +2.0 TC is a little late to begin ramping up the bets. A plus 1.5 TC is just about ideal for that. With Red 7, a minus 1 RC (if beginning at -12), is indeed +1.5 TC with very little depth dependent error.
Hence, just move the IRC forward to positive 9, make your Key Count a nice round positive 20, and your constant pivot will be 21.
You can do this with Red 7 just as well as with KISS.
 
Last edited:
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#12
#12
Got it! But if WAB is already comfortable with his R7 indices and IRCs and such, he should just subtract 21 from each KISS index.
(I read Fred's answer more carefully this time!) :laugh:
 
R

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#14
#14
winnawinna said:
So the KISS indices will work for the R7?
Click to expand...
Yes, they will since the card tags are so nearly the same. But if you keep the original Red 7 IRC, then lower all the KISS index numbers by 21 points. Also, it will be more productive to begin betting multiple units at -1 RC.

Once you have that under your belt, you can make up for most of what unbalanced counts lose due to no true count conversion by "True Fudging". It's really very easy. Simply realize in advance that all Red 7 RC's of +3 and above are a little weaker early in the shoe and a bit stronger late in the shoe (that's with a -12 IRC).

Take for example an RC of +4, where you would bet say, 10 units, take Insurance, double 8 vs. 5, double 9 vs. 7, stand with 12 vs. 2 and double A/8 vs. 4. If it's early in the shoe, you would need a +5 RC to do this, and if it happens late, you need only +3.
RC's of +6 and above require a 2 point shift, up or down depending upon whether you're early or late. Doing this, you'll be virtually right on with the proper TC for all your bet sizes and positive index plays.
 
W

winnawinna

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
CVCX has me starting my bet ramps at -3 and reaching my max bet at +3. Do you think its too early starting at -3? Where do I find the KISS indices? Do you have them?
 
R

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
winnawinna said:
CVCX has me starting my bet ramps at -3 and reaching my max bet at +3. Do you think its too early starting at -3? Where do I find the KISS indices? Do you have them?
Click to expand...
From your previous post, I'm assuming you're referring to a 6 deck shoe and a -12 IRC. If so, yes, I believe that's too early, unless you have better than average rules. My suggested ramps are based on a basic strategy house advantage of 0.50%.
A minus 3 RC will be equal to a TC of about +1.1. A plus 3 RC will be equal to a TC of about +2.8.
However, Norm has done lots of programming work to establish optimal betting ramps, and he could know more than I do on this.

The KISS indices are on page 155 of Blackjack Bluebook II. I'll list them for the 6 deck shoe here -- converted to a -12 IRC.

8 vs. 5 @ +4
8 vs. 6 @ zero
9 vs. 2 @ -2
9 vs. 7 @ +4
10 vs. 10 @ +9 (semi-risk averse)
10 vs. A @ +7
11 vs A @ -2 for S17: @ -9 for H17
12 vs. 2 @ +4
12 vs. 3 @ zero
12 vs. 4 @ <-10
12 vs 6 @ <-15 for S17: never for H17
13 vs. 2 @ -14
15 vs. 10 @ +6
16 vs. 10 @ -6
16 vs. 9 @ +9
A/7 vs. 2 @ -2
A/8 vs. 4 @ +4
A/8 vs. 5 @ -2
A/8 vs. 6 @ -2 for S17: @ -9 for H17
10/10 vs. 5 @ +8
10/10 vs. 6 @ +8
Insurance @ +4

The True Fudging explanation and guidelines are on pages 172 to 176.
 
Last edited:
R

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#17
#17
OOPS: An arithmetic error

Renzey said:
Yes, I believe that betting ramp is too early, unless you have better than average rules. However, Norm has done lots of programming work to establish optimal betting ramps, and he could know more than I do on this.

I'll list the KISS indices for the 6 deck shoe here -- converted to a -12 IRC.

12 vs 6 @ <-15 for S17:
Click to expand...
Sorry: 12vs. 6 should be <-17 for S17 games.

Also, I was thinking in bed last night about Norm's betting ramp. Regarding -3 as the initial ramp up point, that still seems too early. There will be so many times you'll encounter a -3 late in the shoe where the TC will be only +0.5.
But +3 as the end of the ramp? This might be good, since most of your +3's will come late in the shoe, and there the TC will be +4.0. Only occasionally will you encounter +3 early in the shoe, where that TC will be about +2.7.
This is just a theoretical judgment however, and Norm is invited to weigh in with his computer expertise.
 
W

winnawinna

Well-Known Member
#20
#20
Renzey thank you so much. I think his ramp is too soon. So you would say start ramping at -1 in all parts of the shoe? Do you have a ramp that you use that I could see?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top