Christian: Counting speed

[Christian]

G'day everybody,

As a beginner I have spent the past three months learning the KO Preferred count. I have that down pat. I've been using CVBJ full table drills to practice the count.I seem to have plateaued out at 5.5 to 6 rounds per minute with mostly 100% accuracy...occasionaly make one mistake in a round. Just wondering what speed others achieve and what is considered to be fast enough?
I am going to do a bit of back counting at the casino,so I guess that will be a good guide as to whether I am fast enough.
I've read Knock out Blackjack and Stanford's Professional Blackjack and am currently reading Don's Blackjack Attack.
Also read every post on this Forum and have learnt heaps.
Looking forward to reply's.

Christian

[Norm Wattenberger]

I've always wanted to obtain an agreement on what should be a benchmark for acceptable speed. Never been able to get an agreement. Perhaps this is OK. It really comes down to what you can manage while keeping up your 'act.' And that will vary by person and circumstance. The point of the drills is to force you into a speed that you will never experience in a casino. If you still feel uncomfortable in a casino with your performance, stop playing and practice more. And, as many have suggested, watch TV or talk on the phone while practicing. I do not provide such built-in distractions because they cannot compare to human interaction. Humans are not predicatable and therefore the best interaction.

The best test in CVBJ is the two-table back-counting drill. If you can pass that, you are dangerous

[gorilla player]

> I've always wanted to obtain an agreement on
> what should be a benchmark for acceptable
> speed. Never been able to get an agreement.
> Perhaps this is OK. It really comes down to
> what you can manage while keeping up your
> 'act.' And that will vary by person and
> circumstance. The point of the drills is to
> force you into a speed that you will never
> experience in a casino. If you still feel
> uncomfortable in a casino with your
> performance, stop playing and practice more.
> And, as many have suggested, watch TV or
> talk on the phone while practicing. I do not
> provide such built-in distractions because
> they cannot compare to human interaction.
> Humans are not predicatable and therefore
> the best interaction.

> The best test in CVBJ is the two-table
> back-counting drill. If you can pass that,
> you are dangerous

I can do it at a reasonable speed. But I need a roll of duct tape to wrap around my head to keep it from exploding. Wife was watching me play with that last night, asked me "What in god's name are you doing staring so intently at your screen with your eyes bugged out?" When I told her, she gave me her usual "stupid son of a ..." comment while grinning...

I had originally thought you were going to show two tables at the same time, rather than alternating, which (to me) makes it a bit easier... I run it at 5.5 seconds per table for two and almost always click the count before the cards disappear. However I don't talk to anyone or watch TV while doing this. BTW that blue background is ugly.

I play BJ on green, although I have heard some foreign casinos only have blue. My brother was buying a pool table two weeks ago, wanted me to go with him and his wife (my wife too). We picked out a really good 1" slate 9' table, my brother likes dark wood, him and his wife agreed on that, then they got to the playing surface. Pool tables are green. His wife wanted blue. I wanted to throw up. Fortunately, he agreed that blue (this was a sort of tweed blue, not a solid blue like the CV two-table drill, and to me it looked _really_ ugly. green baize for life...

[Norm Wattenberger]

I've gone through many during the life of CVBJ. The current main tables are actual pieced together photographs of tables, shoes, trays and cards. Hundreds of digital photos are dynamically combined to show current situations. I have actually recieved complaints from some people that prefer the cartoonish graphics of online casinos. They are right that they are more attractive. Just not realistic. The term V?rit? says it all.

[gorilla player]

> I've gone through many during the life of
> CVBJ. The current main tables are actual
> pieced together photographs of tables,
> shoes, trays and cards. Hundreds of digital
> photos are dynamically combined to show
> current situations. I have actually recieved
> complaints from some people that prefer the
> cartoonish graphics of online casinos. They
> are right that they are more attractive.
> Just not realistic. The term V?rit? says it
> all.

OK. What if I send you a digital photo of a blue table with puke on it?

You could call it the "ultra-real ultra-blue Gorilla player table color.

But seriously, all the features are really great. I've been counting for 4 years with no problems. My speed has probably doubled on the full table drill in a couple of months of daily practice. I don't see the need to go beyond warp-2 of course, but the faster I get, the more natural it becomes. I've noticed that I am beginning to be able to sort of "stare vacantly" at the full-table drill and count without really counting and do this at 5-6 tables per minute easily. If I sit up, pay careful attention, I can double that. So the faster speed is not really needed just for keeping up, no dealer can deal as fast as that table drill at one table every 5 seconds. But if you drive yourself to reach that point, counting at casino speed seems like slow motion, which was my intention. It is so easy to do, I find it hard to stop and not count each card as it is dealt, since it takes no real brainpower to do that. But it is just as fast to count the cards as the seconds are dealt due to cancellation.

I have a good friend that was a former dealer on the coast while going to school. Now works in a computer-related business. We get together from time to time and play BJ (not on the coast where he is known). And every now and then he decides to challenge me to a head-to-head burnout session at the house. IE play just as fast as he can deal, and I can count/play/make decisions and bet. Pisses him off that he is the limiting factor. My goal is to always be waiting on him, his is to have to wait on me. Only time I even get close to him waiting on me is on some of the 6-7-8 card hands where the true count and hand total are close... 3 months ago we had good contests, last weekend I blew him out. We have another head-to-head test planned for next weekend before we hit someplace or another during the Christmas holidays...

Everything you have done is obvious. Which makes it all the better. IE my biggest issue is big negative counts where mentally saying m-seventeen is too slow but unavoidable (unless you have a better idea). I've even tried m-one-eight but that is probably clumsier. But to make it go faster, your "bias the deck" option lets me force myself to deal with that which gives me the most trouble. And you know what? I haven't screwed up on a big - count in CV drills in a long time now, because of the slowness of thinking "M-thirty-two".

That's a good measure of software usefulness. Does it do what is needed.

For CV BJ, I'd say "yes". I obviously can not say it is better than anything else around, if there is an alternative, because CV BJ is all I have tried. But a couple of pros recommended it to me, and after trying the download version, it was obvious it met my needs exactly.

While I might never become a true black-chip player (of course I might, but I'm not thinking that way at present) I do intend to become _very_ dangerous with counting speed/accuracy. I might even be willing to test a 3-4 table backcounting option one day, if I could ever figure out how to do it in a casino. I can hardly back-count two tables because most of the places I visit are crowded enough that I can't see all the cards, a good point for being 6'10" rather than my sub-6' height. I've seen many cases where I couldn't even backcount a single table, being unable to see all of the cards without looking like a side-show dancing around and craning to see everything. Be stupid to get heat before even playing.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Extreme negative counts are generally simply handled. Leave. I know this can be difficult at some locations. Despite my supposed better judgment, I was at Resorts the day Atlantic City opened. After standing in a line that stretched for two blocks, I wasn?t about to give up my seat. But, this is stupid, for lack of a better word. (Well, they did have early surrender and no concept of counting.)

Having said that I always want input. But, my goal is to make it more difficult ? not easier. Ultimately, I want to create CVTest drills that have recognized standards. That won?t prove anything any more than a PHD But, it will present some rough guidelines.

[gorilla player]

> Extreme negative counts are generally simply
> handled. Leave. I know this can be difficult
> at some locations. Despite my supposed
> better judgment, I was at Resorts the day
> Atlantic City opened. After standing in a
> line that stretched for two blocks, I wasn?t
> about to give up my seat. But, this is
> stupid, for lack of a better word. (Well,
> they did have early surrender and no concept
> of counting.)

> Having said that I always want input. But,
> my goal is to make it more difficult ? not
> easier. Ultimately, I want to create CVTest
> drills that have recognized standards. That
> won?t prove anything any more than a PHD
> But, it will present some rough guidelines.

The one idea that caught my eye from another poster on the CV Drills topic was the answer to the question "what is good enough on say the full-table CVBJ drill to indicate that I'm reasonably ready to try this in a real casino?"

While I can't answer that, if you could come up with a reasonably standard set of drills, with standard settings, and then give a "range" (for example, 6 rounds on the full-table drill per minute is fast enough, 8 per minute is even better. The average serious player can hit 10 per second and a good pro can reach X (No idea what X is)." IE on the drills you have a sort of "speedometer" with what a drag-racer would consider a "red-line" beyond a certain number. Do you consider the redline to be "good" or "very fast"?

On the decks remaining, I trivially do 60+ a minute and that doesn't seem particularly fast. If the outside of the "speedometer" had the first section red (not good enough to think about playing), next section yellow (good enough but even faster would be better) and the upper section green (if you can reach this section you will have no problems with this particular part of counting.)

If you could somehow come up with some standardized "good scores" that would be great. The idea is that most everyone would like to know how they stack up against "known" opposition. While you wouldn't want to include names, of course, some different categories of scores would really be informative...

Now whether that is practical or really doable, is something you have to figure out, that's why you get paid the big bucks.

However, in computer chess programs, a feature many like is some sort of "skill assessment" to let them know not only if they are getting better, but how they compare to various classes of chess players in general...

It is fun to compete against myself and keep pushing the "needle" farther up the scale, but it is also a lot of fun to compete against others, even if indirectly using scores they produced in years past.

[Norm Wattenberger]

V4 will allow the user to set the green/yellow/red annulars on the speedometer thus allowing you to set your own standards. I just need to come up with defaults.

[Gorilla Player]

> V4 will allow the user to set the
> green/yellow/red annulars on the speedometer
> thus allowing you to set your own standards.
> I just need to come up with defaults.

Something else I noticed recently, but had thought it just a screw-up on my part.

Two-table backcounting drill. I had the option "starting hands (2 cards)" set. But I noticed that I often see more than 2 cards per hand on the two-table drill. I finally decided that perhaps this is intended, since when back-counting two tables, they would rarely sync up so that each table only had 2-card hands when I looked.

Is this a correct thinking? That for 2-table backcounting the number of cards is random and not controllable? Not a problem, just thought I was "losing it" for a while as every now and then I'd notice a 5-6 card hand and think "where did that come from" and promptly screw up the count as the screen would blank while I was puzzling that behavior.

Otherwise, it works well, but can be a bit "mind bending". I can do it, but I can't be tired when I start or it is hopeless... If I miss many, and get that "buzz" my wife grumbles "can you turn that buzzer down or stop screwing up whatever you are screwing up so it won't buzz?"

[Don Schlesinger]

> Otherwise, it works well, but can be a bit
> "mind bending". I can do it, but I
> can't be tired when I start or it is
> hopeless... If I miss many, and get that
> "buzz" my wife grumbles "can
> you turn that buzzer down or stop screwing
> up whatever you are screwing up so it won't
> buzz?"

The point is, you shouldn't have to back-count two tables simultaneously for too long before one becomes clearly superior to the other. From Chapter 13, we know how quickly you should be abandoning tables that you're scouting once the count heads south, so, hopefully, most scenarios where you b-c two tables at once should be relatively short-lived.

Don

[Gorilla Player]

> The point is, you shouldn't have to
> back-count two tables simultaneously for too
> long before one becomes clearly superior to
> the other. From Chapter 13, we know how
> quickly you should be abandoning tables that
> you're scouting once the count heads south,
> so, hopefully, most scenarios where you b-c
> two tables at once should be relatively
> short-lived.

> Don

Ok, but in a 6d shoe, I've seen a lot of cases where I stand between two tables, one heads south, other stays neutral, other one then turns around and heads north and eventually that is where I end up playing...

Do you "quit" when the RC hits some magic number? (or the TC if you prefer). I don't do this very often as I find it very difficult to pull off. If both tables are empty, one has to be very careful. If the tables are somewhat crowded, counting is often difficult due to people standing in the way. Some places make this hard by not having BJ tables side by side as well, ie mixing in a 3-card poker table or something else.

But it is interesting at times to watch two. Often wondered if I could sneak into the pit and see if I could do this for more than two, but I suspect that would be noticed.

In any case, this is not something I try very often, as conditions simply don't work out. IE little point in back-counting a table that has every seat filled. This would be a good idea probably for those places that are less crowded, I just don't see much of that unfortunately.

I also seem to be stuck in "neutral-shoe hell" recently. Count climbs a bit, the big cards dump, count goes back down, or big cards come out first, count slowly recovers, but never reach those sought-after points where things look "rosey". Every now and then, yes. Shakespeare might have written "I'd give my right hand for a +10 TC shoe. Nay, I'd give both hands and one leg. But I am smitten by bad luck. To be truthful, my lucketh sucketh, forsooth."

[Don Schlesinger]

> Do you "quit" when the RC hits
> some magic number?

Er, excuse me, but I think about 8 of us worked six months or so to produce Chapter 13, Part I. You might want to have a look! :-)

> I also seem to be stuck in
> "neutral-shoe hell" recently.
> Count climbs a bit, the big cards dump,
> count goes back down, or big cards come out
> first, count slowly recovers, but never
> reach those sought-after points where things
> look "rosey". Every now and then,
> yes. Shakespeare might have written
> "I'd give my right hand for a +10 TC
> shoe. Nay, I'd give both hands and one leg.
> But I am smitten by bad luck. To be
> truthful, my lucketh sucketh,
> forsooth."

Sounds like you're probably watching negative shoes too long, hoping for them to "come back." Reread Chapter 13.

Don

[gorilla player]

> Er, excuse me, but I think about 8 of us
> worked six months or so to produce Chapter
> 13, Part I. You might want to have a look!
> :-)

I did. I was really asking a rhetorical question of a sort, because I didn't think it had a real answer. For example, at an indian casino a month ago, I found perfect conditions to back-count 2 tables. One jumped up, one saw a bunch of 10's come off and went south. Before I could sit down at the remaining position on the climbing count, someone beat me to it. I kept back-counting both as I had nothing better to do. The good count quickly dropped back to slightly negative (TC). But the other cycled up and went right on up to +2 before I could sit down. I sat down, played about 2.5 decks and did pretty well.

The thing that caught my eye was that the table I played at was pretty bad after one deck. Something like TC -3 (I truncate for the record, rounding might have been closer to -4).

The point of the above was if I could have, I would have jumped into the first + table which was already heading back south again, and missed the second table that started off ugly but turned good.

I guess there is really no way to predict any of that, based on what I have seen over the past four years with counts going every-which-way...

> Sounds like you're probably watching
> negative shoes too long, hoping for them to
> "come back." Reread Chapter 13.

> Don

I don't often watch them if they go south, except that on occasion I sort of get forced into it as above, where the empty position on the good table gets jumped on before I can get to it, leaving me with nothing to do but keep back-counting..

But thanks for the reminder. I'll go back and re-read it. A assume you haven't changed this much from previous versions? Or should I hint to my wife that another book order might be a good Christmas idea?