Sidecounting Aces

[creeping panther]

Best

When you have the opportunity to play side by side with other AP's using various counts you come to realize that there is very little difference in performance of systems.

We all should use what suits us best for our particular reasons and not try to belittle others count systems.

That being said,,,,,,HI-Lo_Lo Rocks!!:laugh::laugh::grin::laugh:

CP

 

[zengrifter]

Betting: 2= +1 A= -1

Twio problems -

1. A secondary running count is too difficult for most.*
2. Secondary RC should be less subject to large variance IF 2s and 5s are used (ie, 2 AND 5 +1 / A -2

*Which is why nuetral Ace counts like HO1 or even HO2 don't fully deliver on promise.

 

[zengrifter]

Hi lo has terrible play efficiency, meaning that adding more indices has little effect.

Going from 20 indices to 60+ can boost HiLo about 20% relative gain at 2D.

Playing faster and longer (20% longer sessions) can boost daily EV 50%+

Easy Ace keycarding at 2D can add another 25% boost.

Can those three things boost a daily EV by nearly 100%...

... or am I just deluded? zg

 

[assume_R]

Easy Ace keycarding at 2D can add another 25% boost.

Is Ace keycarding consistent enough with 2D these days? I assume most casinos know people can do this and probably shuffle enough to render this useless?

 

[kewljason]

When you have the opportunity to play side by side with other AP's using various counts you come to realize that there is very little difference in performance of systems.

We all should use what suits us best for our particular reasons and not try to belittle others count systems.

That being said,,,,,,HI-Lo_Lo Rocks!!:laugh::laugh::grin::laugh:

CP

Not wanting to open the always entertaining and never ending 'count' debate, :laugh: I completely agree with CP here. I truely believe there is little difference in performance between hi-lo and a higher, level 2 count for most players. Especially when you incorporate a slightly higher error rate into the performance of such a count. Please note the inclusion of the word 'most'. This excludes experienced, high stakes players and players that play single and double deck games almost exclusively. A count taylored to specific needs could be benefical in these specific situations.

I have found Mr CP's hi-lo-lo count interesting since he first metioned it some time ago. Although I play the traditional hi-lo count, I try to casually side count aces when playing double deck games.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Is Ace keycarding consistent enough with 2D these days? I assume most casinos know people can do this and probably shuffle enough to render this useless?

It's rarely totally useless, but most of the time not good enough to raise your bet on.

Sometimes you can find a dealer blowing the shuffle, and tee off on him.

 

[Dyepaintball12]

Not wanting to open the always entertaining and never ending 'count' debate, :laugh: I completely agree with CP here. I truely believe there is little difference in performance between hi-lo and a higher, level 2 count for most players. Especially when you incorporate a slightly higher error rate into the performance of such a count. Please note the inclusion of the word 'most'. This excludes experienced, high stakes players and players that play single and double deck games almost exclusively. A count taylored to specific needs could be benefical in these specific situations.

I have found Mr CP's hi-lo-lo count interesting since he first metioned it some time ago. Although I play the traditional hi-lo count, I try to casually side count aces when playing double deck games.

Okay so back to my original question, HOW do you use the ace side-count when you use it in DD? Do you have a betting pattern based on the Ace ratio to the amount of quarter decks left?

 

[kewljason]

Okay so back to my original question, HOW do you use the ace side-count when you use it in DD? Do you have a betting pattern based on the Ace ratio to the amount of quarter decks left?

I am really not the person to answer such a question as my ace side counting is pretty casual. My betting ramp is still based on the original count, I just 'tinker' a bit based on the side count. If the TC is +2 and I would normally wager 7 units, I might bump it up two units, to 9 units, if there are 'extra' aces remaining in the unplayed cards. I don't want to go as far as to bump the wager up too much, like to my next wagering level of 12 units because that extra ace or two is already incorporated into the high-low count, so that would be like counting it twice or giving it too much value and overbetting.

 

[zengrifter]

Going from 20 indices to 60+ can boost HiLo about 20% relative gain at 2D.

Yes / No? zg

 

[kewljason]

Yes / No? zg

You are quoting yourself, now. :laugh:

 

[zengrifter]

You are quoting yourself, now. :laugh:

Can you answer the damn question, please, kewl young whipersnapper. zg

 

[Jack_Black]

there is little difference in performance between hi-lo and a higher, level 2 count for most players. Especially when you incorporate a slightly higher error rate into the performance of such a count. Please note the inclusion of the word 'most'. This excludes experienced, high stakes players and players that play single and double deck games almost exclusively.

There is a huge difference between L1 and L2, especially the money, and especially for me is the variance. Not to mention the HUGE fact that I can make garbage games into playable games. I love going into sweaty places that deal me 50% when they see me, and I still play the game, until they pref. shuffle on me. for sure it's an ego booster. You give me a crap game, you sweat me, and I will still take your money, you stupid, meager existence casino personnel.

But with everything, it takes a lot of practice.

 

[kewljason]

Can you answer the damn question, please, kewl young whipersnapper. zg

Well the question is kind of incomplete, with no mention of vital info like pentration or bet spread, but, NO not 20%. more like 7%.

 

[Jack_Black]

Is Ace keycarding consistent enough with 2D these days? I assume most casinos know people can do this and probably shuffle enough to render this useless?

casinos are about as retarded as the real life retards found on the short bus that you went to school with that smelled funny as well as walked and acted funny.

I had a pitboss tell me that he could spot a counter from a mile away! I said "oh yea?" and spread 1-10 on SD.

the short answer for your question is yes. Just scout around like you would for everything else.

 

[zengrifter]

Well the question is kind of incomplete, with no mention of vital info like pentration or bet spread, but, NO not 20%. more like 5%.

Only 5%? Hmmmm. zg

 

[kewljason]

Only 5%? Hmmmm. zg

I actually just adjusted that up prior to your post to 7%, based on sims. Incidentally, "whippersnapper" is a pretty derogatory term and seems kind of uncalled for.

 

[zengrifter]

Is Ace keycarding consistent enough with 2D these days? I assume most casinos know people can do this and probably shuffle enough to render this useless?

No, they are not really watching this for normal BRs, and since the big bets are made in
negative as often as positive counts, it may serve to alleviate house suspicions somewhat.

As for shuffling more, you'd be surprised how cohesive the Ace and its keycard remain. zg

See - Excerpts from Barfarkel's Spring Trip Report

 

[Jack_Black]

Okay so back to my original question, HOW do you use the ace side-count when you use it in DD? Do you have a betting pattern based on the Ace ratio to the amount of quarter decks left?

there are 13 cards per suit. So if 13 cards have been played and you haven't seen an ace yet, you know that the deck is rich with one extra ace. But let's say that 13 cards have been played and 2 aces have come out. You now know that the deck is deficient by one ace.

whatever ace neutral count you are using, assume that the value of the ace for that system will be the same value as a ten card. ex. hi opt 2, the ten value is -2, so the ace BETTING value will be -2. Now let's go back to the original scenario in which 13 cards(1/4 deck) has been played but you haven't seen an ace yet. The RC is 2, making the TC 1, but since there is an extra ace in the deck, add 2 to the TC for a total of 3. now bet accordingly for your TC 3. But let's say that the deck if deficient by one ace. So subtract -2 from TC 1 making the betting TC now -1. DO NOT use this for making index plays. ASC is for betting purposes only. So take out the ace adjusted TC when you are done placing your bet and need to keep track of the cards coming out.

 

[zengrifter]

...whatever ace neutral count you are using, assume that the value of the ace for that system will be the same value as a ten card. ex. hi opt 2, the ten value is -2, so the ace BETTING value will be -2. Now let's go back to the original scenario in which 13 cards(1/4 deck) has been played but you haven't seen an ace yet. The RC is 2, making the TC 1, but since there is an extra ace in the deck, add 2 to the TC for a total of 3. now bet accordingly for your TC 3. But let's say that the deck if deficient by one ace. So subtract -2 from TC 1 making the betting TC now -1. DO NOT use this for making index plays. ASC is for betting purposes only. So take out the ace adjusted TC when you are done placing your bet and need to keep track of the cards coming out.

That was a good easy to understand explanation.

Where the tactic falls apart is:

According to independent experts like Snyder and others, a simple 1/4D estimation of Ace density is not sufficient for bet precision. You may feel like you are doing it well, but the technique is not sufficiently accurate.

So you wind up, in the case of the 1/4D estimate approach, working harder to be where you already were with the Ace-reckoned count, and you'll tell others "I side-count the Aces and it works great," and so you perpetuate the myth of an antiquated system like HO1 trumping HiLo and how easy side-counting Aces is.

Accordingly, the (only?) way to hone the bet-adjustment accurately is to utilize a secondary running count consisting of 2 small cards, like 3s and 5s at +.5 vs As at -1, and then add that secondary 'ace' count to the primary RC before converting to TC to calculate your bet size. Such is impractical for most counters. zg

 

[creeping panther]

Dye

Okay so back to my original question, HOW do you use the ace side-count when you use it in DD? Do you have a betting pattern based on the Ace ratio to the amount of quarter decks left?

You are a very smart young man, this is an opportunity for you to analyze all that is said here and come to your conclusions as how to handle the extra info received from the side count,,,,re-read my post and you will see there is more to be gained than the betting options alone.

CP