Can anyone tell me if it is worth while using a level 2 count over a level 1
Can anyone tell me if it is worth while using a level 2 count over a level 1
> Can anyone tell me if it is worth while
> using a level 2 count over a level 1
Like a lot of things, it depends. Most of the performance gain in a level 2 count is in the area of playing efficiency. This is more important in single and double deck games than in shoes. Level 1 systems generally have as good a betting correlation as the more complex systems, which is by far the most important factor in shoe games.
I recommend that beginners start with a level 1 system. After you get some "live fire" casino experience, you can decide if a level 2 system is worth the added complexity and resulting mental fatigue.
Note that the MIT team used a simple level one count (Hi-lo) to extract millions from Las Vegas casinos.
> Can anyone tell me if it is worth while
> using a level 2 count over a level 1
Parker's response is dead on. I would only add this. The difference between a L1 and L2 counting system is not as large as you might guess. From a discussion about this with Don from a few weeks back, this is an approximation of what you can do with L1 vs L2:
L1 has a very high betting correlation. 98% or so of the time you will bet big when you have an advantage. You might geto to 99% with a L2/L3 system, maybe. So for betting, there is essentially no difference.
L2 has a better playing efficiency. First, about 80% of the time, you play pure BS, so the playing efficiency comes into play on the last 20% where BS departures are recommended. Hi-Lo is about 50% efficient, meaning that for the remaining 20% of the total hands played, where BS isn't good enough, Hi-Lo will get about 1/2 of those right. In short, with simple Hi-Lo counting, you will play correctly 90 out of every 100 hands. The best Non-L1 count around has a playing efficiency of about .67, which means that of that same 20% where BS is not correct, you get 67% or for every 100 hands, you play correctly 93 times. So 3 better plays per 100 hands. You decide whether the work is worth it.
Finally a good L2 (or better) count will help on insurance decisions, since you want to know what the probability of a dealer 10 down is. Hi-Lo tells you the probability of the dealer having a 10 or A down, which is not as useful...
I prefer the KISS principle (not the KISS count) which simply means keep it simple...
I had thought about moving to a stronger count system until I understood what playing efficiency really meant after a discussion with Don. I quickly decided Hi-Lo was good enough.
Far more important that playing efficiency is "playing accuracy".Hi-Lo tends to excel there because it is easy...
A level 2 unbalanced count (UBZ2 for instance)is easier (in my opinion) then a balanced 1 level count and will outperform it in most situations as well. SM
> A level 2 unbalanced count (UBZ2 for
> instance)is easier (in my opinion) then a
> balanced 1 level count and will outperform
> it in most situations as well. SM
I'm not familiar with that, but I assume it is related to the Zen count in some form? But in any case, it seems to me that dealing with -2 -1 1 and 2 is harder than what to me is a simple TC conversion process. I can obviously only speak for myself here, but keeping up with the extra card values seems harder. It might turn out to be just like hi-lo of course, in that enough practice turns it into second nature.
I'll just plead ignorance and take you at your word. I simply don't have any problem with the TC conversion, and a nearly constant set of BS indices is nice to deal with as well. And since the 1-level Hi-Lo count lets me almost count in my sleep, it fits me reasonably well.
Of course I could be convinced to change. I did change from mainly Fortran to C many years ago.
> The best Non-L1 count around has a
> playing efficiency of about .67, which means
> that of that same 20% where BS is not
> correct, you get 67% or for every 100 hands,
> you play correctly 93 times. So 3 better
> plays per 100 hands. You decide whether the
> work is worth it.
I'm sure what Stainless is saying here is correct, but I find it misleading. Whether you make 3 better plays per 100, or 3 better plays per 10,000, the criteria we should be looking at is the difference in SCORES. And if you compare Hi-Lo SCORES to, say, Zen (An excellent level two count that doesn't require an ace side count), you find that Zen outperforms Hi-Lo by 13% to 20%, across a variety of conditions, including multi-deck games. That's a 13% to 20% increase to your bottom line.
Having said that, a level 2 system is clearly more difficult to use than Hi-Lo. A lot of the posts on this thread and the other similar one on BJ Main give me the impression that the gains are inconsequential. But they are consequential, if one would consider a 15% raise consequential.
-Myoo
> I'm sure what Stainless is saying here is
> correct, but I find it misleading. Whether
> you make 3 better plays per 100, or 3 better
> plays per 10,000, the criteria we should be
> looking at is the difference in SCORES. And
> if you compare Hi-Lo SCORES to, say, Zen (An
> excellent level two count that doesn't
> require an ace side count), you find that
> Zen outperforms Hi-Lo by 13% to 20%, across
> a variety of conditions, including
> multi-deck games. That's a 13% to 20%
> increase to your bottom line.
> Having said that, a level 2 system is
> clearly more difficult to use than Hi-Lo. A
> lot of the posts on this thread and the
> other similar one on BJ Main give me the
> impression that the gains are
> inconsequential. But they are consequential,
> if one would consider a 15% raise
> consequential.
> -Myoo
A 15% raise in betting efficiency is consequential. But a 15% raise in playing efficiency isn't, certainly not by comparison.
Playing efficiency and betting efficiency are not of equal importance - not by a long shot.
The other thing to consider is this. You can ramp up your playing efficiency all you like, but if you start doing too many odd ball plays, or if you chop and change your playing strategy too often according to the count, you are going to start raising some eyebrows.
Most of the power to be gained is in the Illustrious 18 plays anyway.
For longevities sake, you must at least appear to limit the number of strategy deviations you apply to your game, so you look like any other gambler.
But above all, the actual winning without a doubt, is in bet variation. And that's why Betting Efficiency should be the main consideration in selecting a counting system, at least from a technical and theoretical point of view.
Alan
> A 15% raise in betting efficiency is
> consequential. But a 15% raise in playing
> efficiency isn't, certainly not by
> comparison.
Agreed, but I was referring to a (roughly) 15% increase in SCORE.
> The other thing to consider is this. You can
> ramp up your playing efficiency all you
> like, but if you start doing too many odd
> ball plays, or if you chop and change your
> playing strategy too often according to the
> count, you are going to start raising some
> eyebrows.
As I have little experience playing, all I can say is that I find it valuable to hear people's opinions on this. At this point I'm just trying to learn from the opinions of veterans. And there isn't a consensus. Schlesinger, for instance, writes: "I've never been a fan of making wrong plays for camouflage purposes. The pit thinks we make wrong plays every time we depart from basic strategy when the count tells us to. Throwing in truly wrong plays hardly seems necessary,"(BJA2, p.118).
> Most of the power to be gained is in the
> Illustrious 18 plays anyway.
If you're right about the above, fair enough; if Don's right, the matter is more complex. Even a low PE system like Hi-Lo gains 10%-35% beyond the "Catch-22" version by employing full indexes. With a running count system, the gains will be less; with a level two system, the gains might be more. But here's the thing: Why wouldn't a person learn more indexes as the years go by? It seems to me it would require very little effort. And, when selecting a system, one might consider not just the initial value (say, based on the I18 or C22) but also the long-term potential. Of course, all of this is moot to the extent that non-typical strategy variation raises red flags in the pit.
> Agreed, but I was referring to a (roughly)
> 15% increase in SCORE.
> As I have little experience playing, all I
> can say is that I find it valuable to hear
> people's opinions on this. At this point I'm
> just trying to learn from the opinions of
> veterans. And there isn't a consensus.
> Schlesinger, for instance, writes:
> "I've never been a fan of making wrong
> plays for camouflage purposes. The pit
> thinks we make wrong plays every time we
> depart from basic strategy when the count
> tells us to. Throwing in truly wrong plays
> hardly seems necessary,"(BJA2, p.118).
> If you're right about the above, fair
> enough; if Don's right, the matter is more
> complex. Even a low PE system like Hi-Lo
> gains 10%-35% beyond the
> "Catch-22" version by employing
> full indexes. With a running count system,
> the gains will be less; with a level two
> system, the gains might be more. But here's
> the thing: Why wouldn't a person learn
> more indexes as the years go by? It seems to
> me it would require very little effort. And,
> when selecting a system, one might consider
> not just the initial value (say, based on
> the I18 or C22) but also the long-term
> potential. Of course, all of this is moot to
> the extent that non-typical strategy
> variation raises red flags in the pit.
I think it is only natural that you do learn more indices. IE you discover that you should not hit a 15 vs a 10 at some count (depending on what count you use of course). Then you get a 15 vs 9 and wonder "should I hit or stand at this count?" and slowly you build up your list of indices. Don't I18 are clearly the most common. But how often do you find cases that are "near" an index you know but not exactly? Doubling 8 against 6? Doubling soft18 vs 2, etc. And the more you learn, the better you play, although this is really moot for those that mainly play 6d since PE is _really_ not that important there.
I like SD/DD games, I'm an oddball that believes hand-held games are easier to count than face-up gaes. And there PE begins to show up as good cards are spread over smaller remaining decks.
I look at the I18 (myself) as a "starting point" rather than an "ending point". Human mental capacity is far from being filled up, so there's always room for jello, or another new index, whichever you want.
> I like SD/DD games, I'm an oddball that
> believes hand-held games are easier to count
> than face-up gaes.
We've finally found something we can agree on. :-)
Maybe it's simply because I play more pitch games than shoes, but I also find them easier to count.
> We've finally found something we can agree
> on. :-)
> Maybe it's simply because I play more pitch
> games than shoes, but I also find them
> easier to count.
I find it easier because it goes slower. The dealer has to go hand by hand, flipping over the face-down cards. Only time I ever have trouble is on the 10-up dealer natural where everyone throws in their hands in disgust. I'm not sure if the dealer is supposed to let the eye see all the cards or not, but in general they don't. Most of the time, they scatter enough that it is easy to scan 'em and be done with it, but on occasion a couple get obscured and there's little that can be done there. I try to play without a full table obviously...
I still think that CVBJ with dealer speed cranked up most of the way, animation cranked up all the way, is a good training device. I can't really use the neat "heads-up" special game because it won't let me play two hands at high counts (Norm!!! how about showing hand 1, letting me play, then hand 2, so you just keep one hand on table at a time, if space is at a premium...)
But back to the premise of SD/DD. I mainly like them as I hate to have big counts in shoes, and see the really wild/ugly variance that causes since the bet spread has to be so big. 1-8 in DD betting 5-40 has seen me toss $1000 into the dealer's tray pretty quickly. Of course I have vacuumed them out more than I've poured them in, but the damned swings is simply ridiculous on any game. Seems to be less pronounced on 1d/2d games. But that is opinion and not measured fact unfortunately.
I've seen new counters complain about lots of things.
(1) hard to count. The road to a winning advantage is the same road to Carnegie Hall... Practice, practice and more practice.
(2) TC conversion is hard. Practice...
(3) keeping the count is hard. Practice...
there is a theme here.
learned that if I keep ramping up the speed so that I can't maintain 100%, that over time I can get back to 100% at that speed and ramp it up another notch. Dealers seem like they are in slow motion, even the ones that used to appear to deal at light speed. No dealer can rip cards from the shoe like CVBJ on max.
As I said, practice... My wife says I am obsessed. I say I am methodical. I'll leave it at that.
She's quit commenting, but I noticed tonight as I was playing the light-speed game, moving the mouse and continually click, click, click, she looked up, shook her head, and went back to whatever she was reading...
I sometimes feel a bit uneasy mentioning how "easy" this counting stuff seems. But if someone works at it a while, it _is_ easy...
easy to count, that is. Watching the variance in action can be painful...
> I'm sure what Stainless is saying here is
> correct, but I find it misleading. Whether
> you make 3 better plays per 100, or 3 better
> plays per 10,000, the criteria we should be
> looking at is the difference in SCORES. And
> if you compare Hi-Lo SCORES to, say, Zen (An
> excellent level two count that doesn't
> require an ace side count), you find that
> Zen outperforms Hi-Lo by 13% to 20%, across
> a variety of conditions, including
> multi-deck games. That's a 13% to 20%
> increase to your bottom line.
OK, here is some data from archived CVCX sims run by Norm.
DD game, S17, DAS, LS, 66% pen. Bet unit = 5, spread 1-8. Win per hour is $16.14 with Zen with full indices. Hi-Lo, same game, $17.51 per hour.
Now I am not going to begin to say the Zen with full indices is bad. I know nothing about it except what I pulled up in the Sim distributed with CVCX. This is zen 1998 with full indices, vs hilo with full indices.
I can post other data for other game specs if you want, but at least for the DD game here, they are close enough (Hi-Lo actually comes out ahead by a dollar) that the extra 2-level mental effort isn't worth it... Maybe I am looking at the wrong "zen" count as it is labeled "zen 1998 full indices"
> Having said that, a level 2 system is
> clearly more difficult to use than Hi-Lo. A
> lot of the posts on this thread and the
> other similar one on BJ Main give me the
> impression that the gains are
> inconsequential. But they are consequential,
> if one would consider a 15% raise
> consequential.
> -Myoo
Maybe for this particular game the difference is not exactly what you were expecting? Again, take this with the grain of salt that I know nothing about the Zen count except for the results in the sim I am quoting...
> DD game, S17, DAS, LS, 66% pen. Bet unit =
> 5, spread 1-8. Win per hour is $16.14 with
> Zen with full indices. Hi-Lo, same game,
> $17.51 per hour.
No, makes no sense. P. 171, Table 9.19 of BJA3 shows Zen clearly superior. So does BJRM. I'll have to check what you did with CVCX, but stop using small units like $5 and generate SCOREs, with $10,000 banks. Something is wrong with the comparison. Hi-Lo should never outperform Zen.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks