Where is the line drawn between different "counting systems"? Obviously, if I suggest a completely "new" set of tag values and then generate the indices for it, that's a "counting system" and then perhaps I can name it something like "Money-Loss Count". On the other hand, If I use the Hi-lo tags and generated a different set of indices, is that still considered a different system?
> Where is the line drawn between different
> "counting systems"? Obviously, if
> I suggest a completely "new" set
> of tag values and then generate the indices
> for it, that's a "counting system"
Yes, but I'd suggest it would have to be capable of producing an edge for the player, like a recipe would have to be capable of producing an edible meal. The reasoning being that a counting system is developed to overcome the house edge. If it fails to do this, then it is not a valid system. This is not as hard as one may imagine. Any system weighting small cards vs big should show a player edge.
If you count say 3-7, instead of 2-6, the same workload is required but you will make less money. This is clearly inefficient & should thus be discarded. Whilst it is a 'counting system' it is not an efficient one.
>On the other hand, If I use the Hi-lo tags and
>generated a different set of indices, is
>that still considered a different system?
No. Nearly every game requires different indices! 1 deck, 2 deck, 8 deck, whether or not the dealer hits soft 17, whether or not dealer BJ takes all, whether double after split is permitted or not: Any of these variations will require different indices.
The system is the card tag values as you suggest.
You should familiarise youself with the most commonly used systems & compare not only the EV but also the ease of use. The existence of so many systems is testament to the fact that people are different & have different capabilities &/or levels of effort they are willing to expend. Also some systems lend themselves more favourably to specific game conditions than others.
Thanks for your concise answer. I was just curious because I've seen times where different counts were based on the same tag values, but have different indices. Case in point: Norm's OK system has the same tags as the KO system. I think there were others, but I can't list them off the top of my head (most are based on the Hi-Lo tags).
Alas, if only all systems were valid! It would have saved me so much time of sorting through crap books...
> Yes, but I'd suggest it would have to be
> capable of producing an edge for the player,
> like a recipe would have to be capable of
> producing an edible meal. The reasoning
> being that a counting system is developed to
> overcome the house edge. If it fails to do
> this, then it is not a valid system. This is
> not as hard as one may imagine. Any system
> weighting small cards vs big should show a
> player edge.
> If you count say 3-7, instead of 2-6, the
> same workload is required but you will make
> less money. This is clearly inefficient
> & should thus be discarded. Whilst it is
> a 'counting system' it is not an efficient
> one.
> No. Nearly every game requires different
> indices! 1 deck, 2 deck, 8 deck, whether or
> not the dealer hits soft 17, whether or not
> dealer BJ takes all, whether double after
> split is permitted or not: Any of these
> variations will require different indices.
> The system is the card tag values as you
> suggest.
> You should familiarise youself with the most
> commonly used systems & compare not only
> the EV but also the ease of use. The
> existence of so many systems is testament to
> the fact that people are different &
> have different capabilities &/or levels of
> effort they are willing to expend. Also some
> systems lend themselves more favourably to
> specific game conditions than others.
I've heard that even though removing 9 hurts the playing efficiency rating, if we count 9 as a 0, it's more beneficial than counting it as -1. Is this true (a la HOII vs. AOII)? If it is true, I'm wondering if perhaps there's a more accurate way of deriving tag values than by just arbitrary card removal.
> I've heard that even though removing 9 hurts
> the playing efficiency rating, if we count 9
> as a 0, it's more beneficial than counting
> it as -1. Is this true (a la HOII vs. AOII)?
> If it is true, I'm wondering if perhaps
> there's a more accurate way of deriving tag
> values than by just arbitrary card removal.
the optimal system for strategy variation for a 2 level count would have you count the 9 as -1
2,3,7 +1; 4,5,6 +2; 9 -1;T -2 .672 efficiency
(Theory of BJ- Griffin p46.)
HOII playing variation efficiency is only slightly less at .670
You would of course have to consider the betting efficiency of each, which is more important, especially in shoe games.
You would also need to incorporate the side ace count into betting efficiency & playing variations also (not doubling 10 & 11 v same in marginal situations when Ace poor & vice versa)
All getting too hard for me, I'll stick to 1 level counts with no side count of Aces thanks
You are absolutely correct in your statement that HOII is not "optimal" in PE. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even beat the AOII. It loses to AOII in BE too, to boot. The question I have is... with all its faults, how come HOII still has a better SCORE than AOII?
> the optimal system for strategy variation
> for a 2 level count would have you count the
> 9 as -1
> 2,3,7 +1; 4,5,6 +2; 9 -1;T -2 .672
> efficiency
> (Theory of BJ- Griffin p46.)
> HOII playing variation efficiency is only
> slightly less at .670
> You would of course have to consider the
> betting efficiency of each, which is more
> important, especially in shoe games.
> You would also need to incorporate the side
> ace count into betting efficiency &
> playing variations also (not doubling 10
> & 11 v same in marginal situations when
> Ace poor & vice versa)
> All getting too hard for me, I'll stick to 1
> level counts with no side count of Aces
> thanks
> Case in
> point: Norm's OK system has the same tags as
> the KO system. I think there were others,
> but I can't list them off the top of my head
> (most are based on the Hi-Lo tags).
They are essentially the same system... the letters were reversed due to some copyright issues or something. Norm explained it somewhere, but I don't recall exactly where I read it.
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't even beat
> the AOII. It loses to AOII in BE too, to
> boot. The question I have is... with all its
> faults, how come HOII still has a better
> SCORE than AOII?
Insurance is the most important play in the game. Using a negative tag on the 9 and counting the 6 as +2, decreases the IC significantly. The very slight increase in BC and PE can't overcome the difference.
From a purely practical standpoint, HO2 is also a much easier count to master. You've only got 2 tags of +2, and no -1 tags.
I never realized insurance was -THAT- important. I'm gonna try experimenting with overweighting insurance and underweighting the other two.
> Insurance is the most important play in the
> game. Using a negative tag on the 9 and
> counting the 6 as +2, decreases the IC
> significantly. The very slight increase in
> BC and PE can't overcome the difference.
> From a purely practical standpoint, HO2 is
> also a much easier count to master. You've
> only got 2 tags of +2, and no -1 tags.
> You are absolutely correct in your statement
> that HOII is not "optimal" in PE.
> As a matter of fact, it doesn't even beat
> the AOII.
According to Griffin, AOII is the optimal 2 level play variation strategy at .672 efficiency. (p.46) At .671 HOII is almost identical.(p.47)
(My last post mistakenly stated .670)
> It loses to AOII in BE too, to
> boot. The question I have is... with all its
> faults, how come HOII still has a better
> SCORE than AOII?
??????? If the BE & PE is lower I am also puzzled.
Can only think
a) You're sim is not big enough to become statistically significant for comparing 2 systems whose PE at least is almost identical, perhaps as is the BE.
b) You've made a mistake, possibly selecting slightly different game criteria or bet ramping for both sims. (we've all done it
c) Somehow HOII is more accurrate after factoring Aces than AOII.
Griffin quotes HOII having a betting correlation of .91 (p45). Unfortunately he doesn't list AOII betting corellation.
I would assume the difference would not be worth your changing systems if you are already comfortable with either.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks