Which system is better?
- Thread starter Aphy
- Start date
SleightOfHand
Well-Known Member
Isn't Kiss 3 a lvl 1 count? Also, the Uston APC, with its very high PE also has a low BE, which means that you would want to have an ace side count to maximize its effectiveness. I suggest neither if you want a better system. It also depends on if you plan on playing mostly shoe games or handhelled gamesAphy said:
SleightOfHand
Well-Known Member
http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htmAphy said:
BE is more important for shoe games and PE is more important for handheld. You may like RPC if you play primarily shoe games. Zen is nice if you play both shoe and handheld (ace is half reckoned)
PS: Consider that because these are lvl 2 systems, they are more difficult and therefore may be more prone to error. If you cannot play them as well as Hi-Lo, stick with hi-lo. It is still a powerful system.
PSS: Also, how much do you play? The higher level counts give a small gain in advantage depending on the system. Depending on how much you play, it may not even be worth it to learn a new system.
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
KISS3 is a level-1 nearly identical to Red7... and UAPC isAphy said:
"obsolete" according to its inventor Ken Uston in '85. zg
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
2223210-1-2-3aphy said:
bc.994
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Ya, just take the fraction of the RC, by how many decks are left, to get the TC. +16/3d=+5Aphy said:
Its jackson's "leave the dealer broke" count.
The overweighted ace and five, makes it good for wongin, because of those aggressive plays like doubling 8v6,XvX,A9v5,6, XXv5,6etc... and its high BC.
Its also pretty easy to use because all 12,13,14&16s cancel out
I will be runnin simms soon, so stay tuned.
Note, that I beliele this count is much better geared for aggressive wongers. Also, counts with high BC will probably make playing 2 hands even more effective. Imagine, tryin to wong in with the UAPC..lol
Even if you could keep the ace side-count, your bets would fall flat.(MD)(Ace-side counts, have poor efficiency for postive double and splits)
Counts with high PE, and low BC should be used with low spreads,(for acceptable RoR) and probably kept to one hand only. imo
Last edited:
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
For over two decades it has been repeatedly demonstrated that a three level system is a waste
of time and will do nothing more than generate a few extra errors and slow you down a bit.
Experts are unanimous on this issue.
That being said I use two-level counts exclusively and have done so for over 25 years.
For hand-held games I use Hi-Opt II
For shoe games I use the ZEN COUNT.
See "Blackbelt in Blackjack" by Arnold Snyder.
Easily found at any Barnes & Nobles or Borders.
Cheap as can be at half.com:
Here is a link where you can improve your game for under $8:
http://product.half.ebay.com/Blackbelt-in-Blackjack_W0QQprZ30782081QQtgZinfo
of time and will do nothing more than generate a few extra errors and slow you down a bit.
Experts are unanimous on this issue.
That being said I use two-level counts exclusively and have done so for over 25 years.
For hand-held games I use Hi-Opt II
For shoe games I use the ZEN COUNT.
See "Blackbelt in Blackjack" by Arnold Snyder.
Easily found at any Barnes & Nobles or Borders.
Cheap as can be at half.com:
Here is a link where you can improve your game for under $8:
http://product.half.ebay.com/Blackbelt-in-Blackjack_W0QQprZ30782081QQtgZinfo
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Not too good. About the same as hi-lo .5 and .75(Not 100% because I dont have xl installed)rukus said:
It would pretty effective for wongin and big-ass spreads tho. Unless Im mistaken it has the greatest efficiency/accuracy for doubling 7-10/A6-A9/77-XX. For example hi-lo has about 70% efficiency for splitting XXvs6, while this system has about 95%+
Im gonna check some simms and see if theres any spread with various entry points to see if it will outperform halves. It should be very close, at some point.
Last edited:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Somebody Hold Me Back!!!!!
Can anyone guess why?:joker::whip:
I actually wrote a response to this post and then deleted it!FLASH1296 said:
Can anyone guess why?:joker::whip:
takinfromindians97
Well-Known Member
First of all the kiss III is a level one count but it is still a good count i used it for quite some time with great success. I love this count becuase there is a great book aIbout it and the author is a member of this site so you can ask him questions, the mentor count in this book is also very good. wantI agree with flash that a level 3 count is a waste of time. I would recomend maybe the UBZ II if you wanted a level 2 count. I really believe that the hi-lo, kiss III, k-o, red 7 or any level one count will be perfect for what you need and make you just about the same amount of money as a level 2 if you practice and play it well.
EyeHeartHalves
Well-Known Member
B.A., seemingly the only other Halves player on this site, didn't want to respond to this but I will.FLASH1296 said:
Waste of time? How is it a waste of time? I use a Level 3 with absolutely no problem. Yeah, it only took me a few days to learn Hi-Lo with perfect accuracy and a few months to learn Halves with perfect accuracy. I admit that but now that I've been using it for a few years I think the few months of my life was worth it. As an example, let's just say two CC'rs each play 20,000 hands. (This could conceivably take place in a year's time.) Say the Hi-Lo guy has an EV of $0.50 per hand and the Halves guy has an EV of $0.54 per hand. (I think these are reasonable estimates for a Green Chip player of shoe games.)
Now, an $800 gain over Hi-Lo may not sound like much to you. BUT BY THAT LOGIC, YOUR ZEN COUNT GAIN OF $600 OVER HI-LO SHOULDN'T SEEM LIKE MUCH EITHER!!! So, why use Zen??? You're only gaining around 6% or so over Hi-Lo!
"Experts are unaminous on this issue."--Experts write books; Players play! If you've been playing for 25 years, you should know this.
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
The .99 Betting Correlation of the HALVES COUNT cannot be beaten.
The playing efficiency and insurance coefficients are both quite good.
For shoe games you cannot do better than Halves.
The problem is simple: Most, (meaning the vast majority) of players,
are NOT capable of learning and accurately employing The HALVES COUNT.
The playing efficiency and insurance coefficients are both quite good.
For shoe games you cannot do better than Halves.
The problem is simple: Most, (meaning the vast majority) of players,
are NOT capable of learning and accurately employing The HALVES COUNT.
EyeHeartHalves
Well-Known Member
Okay, Flash, I'll give you that--most players will make too many mistakes for it to be a viable idea. Is it worth it for you to learn Halves now that you know Zen so well? I think that both of us agree that it is not. I was just trying to say that they should strive to learn something more advanced than Hi-Lo and I don't think "they should all" be limited to Level 2. Some of them may have the time, inclination and capability of learning a Level 3 count. I agree that their gain over your Level 2 will be puny but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try it at home. I think that all the newbies should strive towards every little extra edge that they can get.FLASH1296 said:
BTW: I obviously love Halves and try to defend its "honor" whenever I can but I have recently discovered that "it's not the best." I discovered a system called "Thorpe Ultimate Count" (TUC) has a better BE. Griffin lists it in his chart but does not name it. Appearently, Thorpe must have invented it a long time ago and Grosjean mentions using it for one specific purpose. I practiced it for a couple hours and got down to a deck in 40 - 45 seconds. I have since abandoned the idea save if some specific situation arises where it might be a good idea. Grosjean suggests that it was useful when he was playing a Red Chip table with really crappy rules, low heat and a very small bet spread because of the low table maximum with a partner. One used TUC and one was using a system (not revealed) with a very high PE. The "PE guy" made the playing decisions for the both of them and the TUC counter made the betting decisions.