what counting system do you use?
- Thread starter muppet
- Start date
When I first played BJ, I used Hi-Lo. Then I switching to Hi Opt I, then Hi Opt II then Omega II. From Hi-Lo to Hi Opt I, it is dramatic improvement because of the ace side count (Hi-Lo treats aces and tens the same). But I feel there is little improvement when I switch to the level 2 systems. So I switched back to Hi Opt I now because I am only using very little brain power to count and able to chat with the dealer and other players.
I use my own version of FELT primarily based off of FELT-F (full indexes), but rounded with 0,5,10 based indices of the Ben Franklin count. It uses approximately 50 rounded compromised indices. The only thing I didn't round was the insurance decision, which is +6 for shoes, +5 for DD, and +3 for SD. My sims show it is equivalent to FELT-F for S17 games, but ever slightly weaker (although still very strong) in H17 games. I call it the FELT-BF-Ultimate count, giving credit to QFIT and Automonk for their ideas. In comparing it with the canned CVCX sims, this strategy is only bested for all games across the board by HiOptII and AOII with ace side counts, Halves with close to 200 uncompromised indices, and Zen with ~80 or so uncompromised indices.
Last edited:
2 Counts? A Side Count? Master of?
1 complex system with no A side count will be on par with using 2 different systems or a system with an A side count across multiple blackjack games.:joker::whip:
Mastery of 2 systems or A side count at home may not transfer to casino.
A high betting correlation will take one far.
An exception can be a good 1deck where you don't want to spread much, then a high playing correlation is important. This game will be so rare to so many that the system with the strong betting correlation is still the way to go!:joker::whip:
1 complex system with no A side count will be on par with using 2 different systems or a system with an A side count across multiple blackjack games.:joker::whip:
Mastery of 2 systems or A side count at home may not transfer to casino.
A high betting correlation will take one far.
An exception can be a good 1deck where you don't want to spread much, then a high playing correlation is important. This game will be so rare to so many that the system with the strong betting correlation is still the way to go!:joker::whip:
Last edited:
You silly thing. Of course I won't use two counting systems in the casino at the same time. What good will it bring? I was saying I compared Hi Lo to Hi Opt I with ace side count side by side and my conclusion is that Hi Opt I with ace side count is superior. Much superior. And of course, you can only do these experiments at home.
Last edited:
Ummmmm
I don't think I said at the same time. Those who use 2 counts will often use 1 for shoes and one for hand held.
or
They will count As for hand held but not for shoes.
One strong system without an A side count is quite sufficient for multiple games.:joker::whip:
With one system you can jump around between multiple games in the same casino. I don't think that can be so easily done if trying to employ 2 systems.
I don't think I said at the same time. Those who use 2 counts will often use 1 for shoes and one for hand held.
or
They will count As for hand held but not for shoes.
One strong system without an A side count is quite sufficient for multiple games.:joker::whip:
With one system you can jump around between multiple games in the same casino. I don't think that can be so easily done if trying to employ 2 systems.
Diminishing Return vs Increased Opportunities
Ok, 1 count for bj (Ben Franklin)?
That is not counter to my point.
However,
I would think you could compress those 5 counts to perhaps 3 or 4 counts across different non bj games or sidebets.
Learning time? That could be nothing to you
Fatigue? Perhaps you don't get tired
Error rate? Perhaps your errors are minimal
% gain considering effort especially if employing all counts in 1 trip.?
Why not play the best game?
Although I will admit I can think of reasons why one would not play the best game avaialble, crowded tables at X game vs Y game being an example.:joker::whip:
Monkey
I belive most of the recognized experts would say the use of 1 count (no A side count); it does not even have to be really complex, is preferable across all bj games vs layers of complexity with multiple counts and A side counts.
Do you think as a general statement 1 strong count is sufficient across most bj games found in the US vs Multiple counts and A side counts?:joker::whip:
Ok, 1 count for bj (Ben Franklin)?
That is not counter to my point.
However,
I would think you could compress those 5 counts to perhaps 3 or 4 counts across different non bj games or sidebets.
Learning time? That could be nothing to you
Fatigue? Perhaps you don't get tired
Error rate? Perhaps your errors are minimal
% gain considering effort especially if employing all counts in 1 trip.?
Why not play the best game?
Although I will admit I can think of reasons why one would not play the best game avaialble, crowded tables at X game vs Y game being an example.:joker::whip:
Monkey
I belive most of the recognized experts would say the use of 1 count (no A side count); it does not even have to be really complex, is preferable across all bj games vs layers of complexity with multiple counts and A side counts.
Do you think as a general statement 1 strong count is sufficient across most bj games found in the US vs Multiple counts and A side counts?:joker::whip:
Sure, as a general statement for real BJ only, you can use only one. But I do think it's good to know both a balanced and an unbalanced count for BJ. Maybe the best way would be to learn a count like UBZ and to use it in both true count and running count mode.
Why not play only the best game- because sometimes the best game changes. Crowded tables are one reason- there is also unreliable pen, and heat, and the game you prefer not being available in the venue you're in at the moment. Then there is the matter of team play. If you have a partner at the table one of you might want to be doing an insurance count, and if you're going to do that, you might as well know the hit/stand on 12 plays for the insurance count, as well as when to bet Lucky Ladies when available.
Why not play only the best game- because sometimes the best game changes. Crowded tables are one reason- there is also unreliable pen, and heat, and the game you prefer not being available in the venue you're in at the moment. Then there is the matter of team play. If you have a partner at the table one of you might want to be doing an insurance count, and if you're going to do that, you might as well know the hit/stand on 12 plays for the insurance count, as well as when to bet Lucky Ladies when available.
Oooops
You got me
Sorta!:joker::whip:
I do actually know 3 counts:
Hi lo, though this was my first count. It would be like saying I know how to ride a tricycle. I did at one time; probably could now, but no reason to.
I know and in the past have used the 10 count. I could do this now!:joker::whip:
Finally, my main count Halves:joker::whip:
Though I believe the 10 count was once a main count; it is now probably considered more of an auxiliary system, of which you mention employing in this fashion.
On game availability, yes I agree.
Was it you who posted you like to play DD in RC mode? Do to the nuiscance of obtaining TC? One could probably play any count in RC mode for betting/playing decisions or calculate TC for playing or betting decisions only.:joker::whip:
I am still shocked at some of the respondents who stated they use 1 count for DD and a different system for shoes; it just seems like a lot of unnecessary work, and I am one who uses a complex system!:joker::whip:
You got me
Sorta!:joker::whip:
I do actually know 3 counts:
Hi lo, though this was my first count. It would be like saying I know how to ride a tricycle. I did at one time; probably could now, but no reason to.
I know and in the past have used the 10 count. I could do this now!:joker::whip:
Finally, my main count Halves:joker::whip:
Though I believe the 10 count was once a main count; it is now probably considered more of an auxiliary system, of which you mention employing in this fashion.
On game availability, yes I agree.
Was it you who posted you like to play DD in RC mode? Do to the nuiscance of obtaining TC? One could probably play any count in RC mode for betting/playing decisions or calculate TC for playing or betting decisions only.:joker::whip:
I am still shocked at some of the respondents who stated they use 1 count for DD and a different system for shoes; it just seems like a lot of unnecessary work, and I am one who uses a complex system!:joker::whip:
Yes, I prefer RC for the hand-held games and the big reason is it's too easy to get your deck estimation deceived by the way the dealer handles the cards.
So, to pick one system for all legit BJ games, I'd use Unbalanced Zen, learn the RC indices for SD, the RC indices for DD, and the TC indices for shoes and DD games where I can get a solid deck estimation. Not so bad right? One count, 3 sets of indices, and the spread is something you'll have to calculate individually for each game anyway depending on rules and bet sizing issues.
So, to pick one system for all legit BJ games, I'd use Unbalanced Zen, learn the RC indices for SD, the RC indices for DD, and the TC indices for shoes and DD games where I can get a solid deck estimation. Not so bad right? One count, 3 sets of indices, and the spread is something you'll have to calculate individually for each game anyway depending on rules and bet sizing issues.
Wow
I estimate by looking at the discard tray for all games.
Back and forth between TC mode and not? Why not just go RC mode. Especially if a strong RC mode system.
I do have different bet ramps for games when the difference warrants it.
However,:joker::whip:
If one is betting conservatively, say .5Kelly does it really matter if you are betting .4 for another game? Especially if in the real world we have some camo with our betting and the floating advantage means our bets are an average anyway. An easy way around the issuse of learning different bet ramps is to just realize on a worse game bet later, say at .5 intervals higher.
Apparently there is not much difference in indices by 1 or 2 TCs, so that should mean one could come up with 1 indice set for all bj games.
I estimate by looking at the discard tray for all games.
Back and forth between TC mode and not? Why not just go RC mode. Especially if a strong RC mode system.
I do have different bet ramps for games when the difference warrants it.
However,:joker::whip:
If one is betting conservatively, say .5Kelly does it really matter if you are betting .4 for another game? Especially if in the real world we have some camo with our betting and the floating advantage means our bets are an average anyway. An easy way around the issuse of learning different bet ramps is to just realize on a worse game bet later, say at .5 intervals higher.
Apparently there is not much difference in indices by 1 or 2 TCs, so that should mean one could come up with 1 indice set for all bj games.
Last edited:
Not in Reno you don't. About half the stores tuck the discards to the bottom of the deck, no discard tray. Some of the dealers will hold their thumb longways across the side of the deck so you can't see where the yellow card is.
Because it makes Wonging out onerous in shoe games, especially 8D. You end up having to do deck estimation anyway, and if you're going to do that you might as well true count. Shoe sucks when you can't Wong out.
Depends. A spread for SD, DD and shoe are nothing like each other. Heat, table min/max, and whether or not you can play two hands all require significant changes. Plus if you are playing with a partner you now have a new BR. Not straightforward; for everything new I do I end up calculating a different ramp.
Sure, but then you're TC'ing all the time. No way you can use the same RC indices for SD, DD and shoe.
Because it makes Wonging out onerous in shoe games, especially 8D. You end up having to do deck estimation anyway, and if you're going to do that you might as well true count. Shoe sucks when you can't Wong out.
Depends. A spread for SD, DD and shoe are nothing like each other. Heat, table min/max, and whether or not you can play two hands all require significant changes. Plus if you are playing with a partner you now have a new BR. Not straightforward; for everything new I do I end up calculating a different ramp.
Sure, but then you're TC'ing all the time. No way you can use the same RC indices for SD, DD and shoe.
Different Strokes from Different Folks!
Never been to Reno
Funny, those 5 casinos probably think they are really doing something. I wonder if it slows down their dealing rate?:joker::whip: or if they lose customers because it looks funny compared to standard discard use.:joker::whip:
Sounds reasonable, I TC for all games and decisions
Well, I guess if one is timed:joker::whip:
1 to 2 hand? Increase bet by 50% and spread it to 2 hands (talking regular bj). We obviously both know this, I don't consider it as another ramp.
We do both have different ramps for multiple games.
Sure, adding a partner bank is similar to recalculaing after a big win or loss if you resize. To resize your bank on wins and losses is not the same as different ramps for every game you come across. One would also find different penetrations of same games that should but does not have to require it's own bet ramp.
REKO uses 1 indice set for all games but then adds several indices for SD, one could choose to not add those indices or incorporate those into all decks.
I was looking over some of the unbalanced counts, but they seem to be half as good as halves!:joker::whip:
We seem to be similar in our styles of play. Sometimes you use RC because of a very specific situation and you are acutally simplifying things.
Never been to Reno
Funny, those 5 casinos probably think they are really doing something. I wonder if it slows down their dealing rate?:joker::whip: or if they lose customers because it looks funny compared to standard discard use.:joker::whip:
Sounds reasonable, I TC for all games and decisions
Well, I guess if one is timed:joker::whip:
1 to 2 hand? Increase bet by 50% and spread it to 2 hands (talking regular bj). We obviously both know this, I don't consider it as another ramp.
We do both have different ramps for multiple games.
Sure, adding a partner bank is similar to recalculaing after a big win or loss if you resize. To resize your bank on wins and losses is not the same as different ramps for every game you come across. One would also find different penetrations of same games that should but does not have to require it's own bet ramp.
REKO uses 1 indice set for all games but then adds several indices for SD, one could choose to not add those indices or incorporate those into all decks.
I was looking over some of the unbalanced counts, but they seem to be half as good as halves!:joker::whip:
We seem to be similar in our styles of play. Sometimes you use RC because of a very specific situation and you are acutally simplifying things.
Last edited: