RPC vs ZEN: For AutoMonk!

[blackjack avenger]

Agree and Agree?

Because sometimes I am playing something other than standard blackjack.

blackjack avenger
:joker::joker:I can understand your reasoning, but that is not what your statement originally implied.

That's in a shoe game. In a pitch game you do not repeatedly Wong out. Also, in a pitch game indices are more important because 1) you cannot get a large spread down like you can in a shoe game and 2) extreme counts (both high and low) are more common and your insurance plays and extreme-count plays like DD 10 vs. 10 get used more often, thus the added playing and insurance efficiency of Zen is brought to bear.

blackjack avenger
:joker::joker::joker:I agree with you, but wasn't the Harris study showing shoes? I am not sure but I think I did show the play all comparison was not sound, even Brett said you would have to have rocks in your head to play this way. So one should not play shoes the way you would need for Zen to outperform RPC. For practical/smart shoe play RPC probably outperforms Zen as Brett Harris shows.

A 5% increase is nice. But if you already know Zen, the time and trouble it would take you to learn a new count (especially a guy like ZG who has been using Zen for decades) would be better spent playing and researching games, to earn your extra 5%.

I tend to agree, if learning a new count takes away from actual playing or if you know a count for years then it may not be worth the effort.

I think we are pretty much on the same page:joker::whip:

 

[blackjack avenger]

Fact or Theory?

Your "fact" is a theory, that a higher-resolution level-2 (or 3) system will put more money on the table than HiLo.
That theory was ultimately abandoned or otherwise negated.

blackjack avenger
:joker::joker:Otherwise negated? Run some sims of various counts. There is a difference. Brett Harris showed that, we are discussing if the difference has meaning.

And the idea of accelerated upward Kelly upsizing the bets has nothing fundamentally to do with stronger counts
and applys equally to HiLo. zg

Nothing fundamentally to do with stronger counts? Why do we fundamentally count cards? To make money. The better count for a given situation is just better.:joker::whip:

Also, did you just take a swipe at optimal resizing betting? It's on now :whip::laugh: kidding. If optimal is the best (though we can't do it, yada yada, we can get close yada yada) a counting system that brings more power to some form of resizing should be considered a good thing:joker::whip:

It seems some of you are trying to make the argument that 5% more is somehow less? Well not mathematically. However, one could make the subjective argument about ease of use, but that is just subjective now isn't it? Some can do it with ease, some can't. Some should do it, some shouldn't.:joker::whip:

 

[kewljason]

Personally I use RPC. Using billion hand computer simulation, is it a few cents stronger or weaker than Zen? DOESNT MATTER! If anything this only prove the counts are equal in strength. You can set up simulations that may slightly favor this count or that count. You can change number of decks, penatration, wong out points, number of indicies, rules, and so on and so on. I doubt the true difference in these counts is anywhere near 5%!! And what if the simulation shows that for a 6 deck, 80%, stand 17, wong out at neg counts of -2, using 30 indeices, count A is a few cents stronger than count B. It only really matters if you play this exact game 100% of the time. What if only 80% of your play is against 6 decks? what about games against different rules, penatrations? and what if your wong out point or number of indices are different than the simulation? The important number that we can learn from simulations is that a level 2 count can increase your win rate roughly 10% over hi-lo if played properly. Which one you choose is much less significant.

 

[zengrifter]

Exactly, which is why I say in ZGI that if I knew then what I know now I'd never have left RPC.

Regarding that extra 5% (10%?) gain, playing a 65min session instead of 60min will accomplish the
same thing or better with less mental effort. zg

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Like to Sleep

Or
One plays 19 hours while another plays 20 hours for the same return.

I think it is fair to say that time out of the casino is the best camoflauge.:joker::whip: and I think that extra hour playing adds to fatigue.

I am happy with my choice in counts, started Hi Low and in about a month went to Halves on advice from more experienced players. Like others here I have chosen my path.

If one is very good at math and serious, why not use a higher level count?
If one is not so strong at math or recreational, then perhaps Hi Low or an unbalanced count?

In general game and bet spread selection are more important then count used.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Yes?, No? and Maybe?

Personally I use RPC. Using billion hand computer simulation, is it a few cents stronger or weaker than Zen? DOESNT MATTER! If anything this only prove the counts are equal in strength. You can set up simulations that may slightly favor this count or that count. You can change number of decks, penatration, wong out points, number of indicies, rules, and so on and so on. I doubt the true difference in these counts is anywhere near 5%!! And what if the simulation shows that for a 6 deck, 80%, stand 17, wong out at neg counts of -2, using 30 indeices, count A is a few cents stronger than count B. It only really matters if you play this exact game 100% of the time. What if only 80% of your play is against 6 decks? what about games against different rules, penatrations? and what if your wong out point or number of indices are different than the simulation? The important number that we can learn from simulations is that a level 2 count can increase your win rate roughly 10% over hi-lo if played properly. Which one you choose is much less significant.

If you mostly play shoes, then why not a count that is strong with shoes?
If you mostly play SD, then a count that favors that game.

Counts at the same level would be more similar then counts at different levels. I think you stated that.

A higher level count is perhaps stronger over a wider range of games.

The games one faces would make a difference in count preference:

shoe games with large spreads, playing fewer hands (wong) - counts with high betting correlation.

single deck - many hands played, minimal bet spread, wide range of counts - counts with high insurance and playing correlation, maybe if highly skilled a side count of A's (a whole nother can of worms :whip

DD - more like a shoe then single deck - Perhaps the balanced counts, if willing to spread a lot the counts with betting correlation, if not willing to spread a lot then the counts with better playing and insurance correlation.

Counts are different, they do show strengths and weaknesses. Probably the count one is currently using is fine. Learning a new count should probably not take away from actual playing.

Probably if someone asks.
which count should I use?
The responses should be.
What do you play?
How good at math are you?
How serious are you?
Probably hard questions for a civilian to answer.

That Hi Lo is not shabby:joker::whip:

I apologize guys:joker:
I have a lot of free time on my hands:devil:
Today I may go to the beach

 

[jack.jackson]

Except to a computer simulating billions of hands, they are equal. The Ace-included/balanced level-2 counts, that is.

The Ace-neutral level-2s, like HO2 and AO1 are inferior, for most because they are stronger in perfect simulation, but weaker, plyaed by an average human practitioner.

And then there is the level-2 unbalanced count(s), like UBZ, which may be even stronger WHEN played by a human, as opposed to a computer.

And finally you have the unbalance true-counted level-2, like BRH-2 and TUBZ (pronounced "tub-zee") which would be the strongest by both computer sim and actual human use. ...AND requires no additional effort over ZEN, RPC, or Mentor.

Even given the above, I would recommend Mentor over ZEN and RPC for 2-3 compelling reasons IF you weren't already acclimated to a 1D TC (Mentor employs a unique 2D TC, which I feel is worth that extra5% that BJAvenger is harping about).

However, that said, the strongest therefore would be a TUBZ 2D TC system....

...and then there's the Jack Jackson level-2.... zg

Ps - The philosophy in the ZGI holds true: You can increase your HiLo power substantially higher than ZEN w/top20 indices if you add more HiLo indices and play faster and longer. Despite all the hype most bigger money pros use HiLo.

No that was my Level3(2233210-1-3)(-3+)

If it were ten years ago or earlier,(when single and DD were more common) I wouldve stuck with it. But as fate would have it, "things change".

In addition to "that" this is what I looked like after a fort-night of using it :yikes:

I would also like to point out one of the side-effects about using a higher level count, that you often dont hear about.

1. You might be compelled to use more cover plays.
(winning more $ could be a red flag)

2. Your manuerisms, may look more unnatural when using a higher level count.

Sometimes I wonder, if using a L1 full kelly, would be= to using a L2 half-kelly?

And unless Im mistaken, the more decks that are in-play, the less discrepency there is, between which level count(s) your using.

So as you can see, as Kooljason mentioned, their is no definitive one answer. For so many factors come into play. Everything from the# of decks, to how well an individual uses his or her count, and everything inbetween.

 

[kewljason]

Probably if someone asks.
which count should I use?
The responses should be.
What do you play?
How good at math are you?
How serious are you?
Probably hard questions for a civilian to answer.

These questions are being asked by norm in the Blackjack strategy advisor http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-strategy.htm

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Probably if someone asks.
which count should I use?
The responses should be.
What do you play?
How good at math are you?
How serious are you?
Probably hard questions for a civilian to answer.

These questions are being asked by norm in the Blackjack strategy advisor http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-strategy.htm

The basic thing to remember is that for standard blackjack, they all work and you can just go ahead and try each one and see what happens.

 

[ace157]

The basic thing to remember is that for standard blackjack, they all work and you can just go ahead and try each one and see what happens.

my thoughts exactly, though im still a newb, my impression is that essentially all counting methods perform ROUGHLY the same, in other words they all work. When it comes to choosing which one, perhaps (as someone said) you are not so good at math and choose an easier count that is NEARLY as effective. However, if you can handle the added difficulty maybe its worth a lil extra gain to learn a new system. Or perhaps the difference is so little its not worth the effort to switch. Possibly the added fatigue of adding 5 minutes of play per hour is worth the strain & stress of learning a new system.

bottom line: pick one you like because they all work. if you're not satisfied, try something new, either way your decision will be justified. We all have different circumstances and preferences, so its a GOOD thing that its a tough call between counting systems. :grin: