Renzey said:
I do wong out, but not as conscientiously as most -- usually at -2TC. And no, I have never tried to develop the ability to "gain a feel for the count". Don't think I could trust it. After the first 500 or 1000 hours of dedicated counting at the tables, I believe it becomes a somewhat automatic tabulation.
If you're a player who continues to do "fuzzy counting", I'd recommend an abbreviated, but structured count, such as Snyder's "Senior Count", (4, 5, 6 vs. Jack, Queen, King) or an unbalanced spin-off of that which is KISS I (4, 5, 6 & black 2 vs. Jack, Queen, King). They keep tabs on only around half the cards, lightening the load of card counting considerably, but still have a 78% & 79% BC. I believe these would serve you much better than "fuzzy counting".
i appreciate the feed back Renzey. i read your book. guess i'm just one to use some of the more qualitative stuff you discussed in your book. like the fuzzy counting stuff i use is maybe similar in nature to how you discuss babies cards in your book (pg 93 chpts 6,7,8 stuff) and the approach for that, but what i do is even more qualitative in nature than even that. i practice a lot with cvbj, so i have logs and can check how my betting correlates with the true count. more times than not i can nail my raised bets in positive counts, sometimes getting the blackjack, double down or insurance bet i'm after. but, i'll be the first to admit i'm sometimes pretty far off base, even sometimes betting up into negative counts while thinking i'm in positive true count territory

. no flagrant progression betting for me though, lol. but maybe when i'm erroneously betting into a negative count it's similar. maybe that gets me into the percentages of short term success a progression better can realize, i dunno. guess i've been just lucky to not overly suffer that small percentage of big loss that happens.
i knew about Snyder's senior count stuff. it's too stressful for me, lmao.
for some reason it stress's the hell out of me holding the rc in my memory, especially when so much of it is negative counts.

but i can use hi/lo proficiently, so sometimes i do what i should an knuckle down with it.
i used to use the ace/ten front count. that was a lot of fun, lol. had to swear off that though as the variance was a bit much. lucky for me the variance was mainly on the right side of the bell curve before i started using hi/lo, which has some nasty variance of it's own, lol.
i like the part in your book where you leave us know that
"you can always lose", lol, but it's good too to know that we might can win every once and a while as well.

anyway i really like the KISS philosphy.