Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 59

Thread: gazman: Level 2 count

  1. #1
    gazman
    Guest

    gazman: Level 2 count

    Can anyone tell me if it is worth while using a level 2 count over a level 1

  2. #2
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Level 2 count

    > 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.

  3. #3
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: Level 2 count

    > 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...


  4. #4
    suicyco maniac
    Guest

    suicyco maniac: Re: Level 2 count

    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

  5. #5
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: Level 2 count

    > 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.

  6. #6
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: but if you look at the bottom line. . .

    > 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

  7. #7
    Alan
    Guest

    Alan: Re: Level 2 count

    > Can anyone tell me if it is worth while
    > using a level 2 count over a level 1

    I've used AOII (Level 2 balanced with Ace side), KO (Level 1 unbalanced) and UBZII (Level 2 unbalanced), all very extensively.

    I found AOII (with Ace side) very powerful but very time consuming to learn properly, very tiring to use and high maintenance.

    I found KO very simple, and very fast, the speed more than making up for any loss in win rate due to less power compared with AOII.

    I now use UBZII, which is I suppose a nice balance between these two, and gives me something to think about.

    Counting a Level 2 (balanced or unbalanced) is more work than counting Level 1.

    With KO, no maintenance required.

    With UBZII, a little bit of practice before a session is beneficial.

    In hindsight, I doubt that the difference in power between KO and UBZII was worth the extra effort.

    I'm of the mind that if the game can't be easily beaten by KO, then it's probably not worth playing anyway.

    The gain is more in the betting efficiency than anything else anyway, and they are all about on par with each other in that respect.

    So, my suggestion would be to go with KO. Keep it simple and you can have pleasant conversation, focus on camouflage if need be, and generally enjoy yourself.

    And when the losing streaks come (and they will, regardless of the counting system you use), if you've been using a simple system, you don't have to feel like you've been through the meat grinder mentally as well.

    Hope this helps.

    Alan

  8. #8
    Alan
    Guest

    Alan: Re: but if you look at the bottom line. . .

    > 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

  9. #9
    Myooligan
    Guest

    Myooligan: strategy variation "tells"

    > 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.

  10. #10
    Wolverine
    Guest

    Wolverine: HiLo with Ace side count

    I mentally count HiLo and keep a side count of aces since I play double deck or less. Is this combination considered a Level 2 count or just an enhanced version of HiLo?

    I usually "add" or top-off my bet with an extra unit when there are 2 extra aces available for the size of deck remaining (e.g., 1 deck remaining in a DD game and at least 6 aces remaining to be dealt). I read this a BJ book I read years ago. Does anyone else use this side count of aces to help with their betting spread? I also tend to table minimum my bets when ALL the aces are out of a DD game since my 3:2 payout isn't going to happen --OR-- drop a unit or two off when there are TWO less ACES for the estimated remaining decks.

    Finally, in BJA3 (have had the book for about 1 year, I think I'm going to need another 50 to halfway understand it all!) the Insurance Index for a DD game is +3. If you know the ace side count, can/should you use that information to fine tune the Insurance wager? I'm sure the answer is going to be Yes, but exactly how would you alter your play? What would this new, Tens Only Insurance Index be?

    A detailed math explanation would be best for me to understand it. (e.g., RC is +8, 1 1/2 decks remaining, so Insurance would be a good bet since the TC is above 5 (+5.33 to be exact) and the Index is +3. However, what if you know that there are 7 aces remaining in the deck {one is staring at you as the dealer pleasantly asks, "insurance?"}. Would you adjust the RC down to +7 (from +8 to +7 for the one extra ace in the shoe) and then convert to a TC (14/3=4.67) and compare to the new "ten's only insurance index" that you have created? Or do you remove ALL the aces (RC of +8 down to +1 and then convert to a "ten only TC") and compare to the newly minted index we are talking about.

    Thanks in advance to the mathematicians. I'm looking forward to the information and opinions on this one!

  11. #11
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: strategy variation "tells"

    > 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.


  12. #12
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: strategy variation "tells"

    > 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.

  13. #13
    stainless steel rat
    Guest

    stainless steel rat: Re: HiLo with Ace side count

    > I mentally count HiLo and keep a side count
    > of aces since I play double deck or less. Is
    > this combination considered a Level 2 count
    > or just an enhanced version of HiLo?

    still a 1-level count. two card values, -1 and +1. 2-level count typically uses numbers like +1, +2, -1 and -2...

    > I usually "add" or top-off my bet
    > with an extra unit when there are 2 extra
    > aces available for the size of deck
    > remaining (e.g., 1 deck remaining in a DD
    > game and at least 6 aces remaining to be
    > dealt). I read this a BJ book I read years
    > ago. Does anyone else use this side count of
    > aces to help with their betting spread? I
    > also tend to table minimum my bets when ALL
    > the aces are out of a DD game since my 3:2
    > payout isn't going to happen --OR-- drop a
    > unit or two off when there are TWO less ACES
    > for the estimated remaining decks.

    You lose the A natural case, but suddenly other things work better. For example, bit + count, you double on an eleven, and you get that 10 rather than the dreaded A. Ditto for the dealer that hits that stiff 16 and busts out rather than getting a 17.

    > Finally, in BJA3 (have had the book for
    > about 1 year, I think I'm going to need
    > another 50 to halfway understand it all!)
    > the Insurance Index for a DD game is +3. If
    > you know the ace side count, can/should you
    > use that information to fine tune the
    > Insurance wager? I'm sure the answer is
    > going to be Yes, but exactly how would you
    > alter your play? What would this new, Tens
    > Only Insurance Index be?

    Hmm. I use +2 for Hi-Lo on DD. Perhaps I am doing something wrong. But if you know how many aces are still out, it certainly could help the insurance decision as you know how many 10's are out, and now can remove the extra A's from the count to figure out what the dealer might have down.

    > A detailed math explanation would be best
    > for me to understand it. (e.g., RC is +8, 1
    > 1/2 decks remaining, so Insurance would be a
    > good bet since the TC is above 5 (+5.33 to
    > be exact) and the Index is +3. However, what
    > if you know that there are 7 aces remaining
    > in the deck {one is staring at you as the
    > dealer pleasantly asks,
    > "insurance?"}. Would you adjust
    > the RC down to +7 (from +8 to +7 for the one
    > extra ace in the shoe) and then convert to a
    > TC (14/3=4.67) and compare to the new
    > "ten's only insurance index" that
    > you have created? Or do you remove ALL the
    > aces (RC of +8 down to +1 and then convert
    > to a "ten only TC") and compare to
    > the newly minted index we are talking about.

    > Thanks in advance to the mathematicians. I'm
    > looking forward to the information and
    > opinions on this one!

    I'll leave that can of worms to those that know more about it. Simply subtracting Aces out seems wrong as suddenly this becomes an unbalanced count which could have some strange effects overall.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.