-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Lost me, too!
Again, to be counting in positive mode all the time, all you had to do was add an arbitrarily large enough number to the IRC of, say, -20, for 6 decks. That alone would keep you in positive territory throughout the shoe.
There is little logic to reversing how you count the high and low cards. That doesn't help keep you in positive numbers. In fact, it is counter-intuitive (no pun intended) to be getting more and more excited as the count is getting lower and lower.
Don
-
Sun Runner: Re: Lost me, too!
> There is little logic to reversing how you
> count the high and low cards.
Maybe no logic -but see my post above -it may be more natural.
-
Radar: Why Not Just Adjust the IRC to Zero?
> First of all, you guys know I don't do
> anything easy.
That's an understatement. I haven't played KO with shoe games, yet. First year playing and have play KO with hand-held games only.
What I do is start at zero. (DD) Then adjust the Key and Pivot, accordingly.
Yes, you do go south sometimes and have to deal with negatives, but it's easier to begin the hand at zero than memorizing a large positive or negative number to get started and then adjusting. I can see where you can go WAY south in a shoe game and, I assume that's your reasoning.
Still it seems easier to remember that small cards are minus and large cards are plus, like ALL other systems. Seems less confusing to me. But, hey, to each his own!
-
Parker: Perfectly logical
> When I first started learning, since the T/A
> were good for me, I had the darndest time
> counting them as a minus. Conversely, since
> the smalls were bad for me I had a hard time
> counting them as a plus.
Exactly. However, we are actually tracking the composition of the decks remaining in the shoe. So, when a ten comes out, we say "minus one" (or two or whatever) because there is now one less "good" card remaining in the shoe.
Makes perfect sense. :-)
-
Parker: Whoa . . .
Well, if it works for you . . .
One small favor: Please don't ask me how to do a true count conversion doing it this way. :-)
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Lost me, too!
> Maybe no logic -but see my post above -it
> may be more natural.
What I find illogical or not natural is to equate, in one's mind, a lower value of the count with something that is "better." Now, I suppose lower is better when it comes to blood pressure and cholesterol, but for the count, I'd like to think that most people would feel that higher is better and lower (or negative) is "bad."
But, that's just me. Whatever works, as long as one is accurate, is fine, I suppose.
Don
-
Hollywood: Re: Lost me, too!
> Again, to be counting in positive mode all
> the time, all you had to do was add an
> arbitrarily large enough number to the IRC
> of, say, -20, for 6 decks. That alone would
> keep you in positive territory throughout
> the shoe.
> There is little logic to reversing how you
> count the high and low cards. That doesn't
> help keep you in positive numbers. In fact,
> it is counter-intuitive (no pun intended) to
> be getting more and more excited as the
> count is getting lower and lower.
> Don
Hi Don:
You forget posts from several years ago from me.
I was always a D and F student in math and had to bribe a teacher to pass me once.
I have a bit a trouble with time tables
That's why a few weeks ago I posted that I should be the poster child for BJ. Because if I can make alot of money doing it, imagine what a normal math person is capable of.
I figure there are several ways for me to do this better, but a person with my math abilities had to do it in a way that worked for me.
On several occasions in the beggining I did it both ways just to confirm that I was at the correct place at the end. I always was.
So I figured it worked for me and I stood with it.
That is also why I never question they whys of what we do. It's much to confusing for a person with my abilities.
But, I make certain I know every play under every condition under every circumstance.
AND, that I have the hootzpa (Don will correct spelling) to follow it all up with the $.
In the Blackjack world of counting, I know my limitations and many weaknesses, so I work around them.
By the way for those of you that don't know what hootzpa is. BALLS
Hollywood
-
Don Schlesinger: chutzpah! :-) *NM*
-
JohnAuston: Re: TKO
> And finally, if I understand Brett Harris
> properly, I think he says a true counted
> unbalanced count may be the absolute
> strongest system going.
This shouldn't be a such a surprise, really. BYT, credit goes to Ken Fuchs for his pioneer work on true counting unbalanced systems.
Anyway, back to my point.
Back in the day, when folks were assuming that the card tags needed to balanced, they naturally had to make compromises. Regarding hi-lo versus TKO, it turns out that it is better to count the seven, than to not count the seven. But if hi-lo counted it, it would have to find another card ( negative ) to offset it and keep the balance. Only thing really available was the 9, but as we now know, that hurt the Insurance index - the most valuable one of all.
But TKO can count the 7, without the Insurance loss, or at least the Insurance loss is more than made up by the gain in knowing about 7's.
So, true counting unbalanced systems allows one to count "excess" positive or negative cards, without compromise.
I would not be surprised if the most powerful-but-not-too-difficult count of all, would be a true counted unbalanced level 2.
-
Parker: Re: TKO
> I would not be surprised if the most
> powerful-but-not-too-difficult count of all,
> would be a true counted unbalanced level 2.
I've run a few sims on a true-counted UBZ2, and it looks very promising -- enough so that I've started using the system with IRC's adjusted for a 0 pivot point, in anticipation of (some day) using it in true count mode.
-
JohnAuston: Re: TKO
> I've run a few sims on a true-counted UBZ2,
> and it looks very promising -- enough so
> that I've started using the system with
> IRC's adjusted for a 0 pivot point, in
> anticipation of (some day) using it in true
> count mode.
That's probably what I would do, too. UBZ2 is a terrific count, even in RC mode only.
-
Cacarulo: Re: TKO
> I've run a few sims on a true-counted UBZ2,
> and it looks very promising -- enough so
> that I've started using the system with
> IRC's adjusted for a 0 pivot point, in
> anticipation of (some day) using it in true
> count mode.
In that case you would do better with a balanced count like Zen. I've posted some SCOREs comparing UBZ2(T) against other counts.
Sincerely,
Cac
-
Sun Runner: Re: TKO
> In that case you would do better with a
> balanced count like Zen. I've posted some
> SCOREs comparing UBZ2(T) against other
> counts.
Since you brought it up (I was hating to ask) do you have the SCORE on UBZII(T)/A?
Also, I think Parker plays more SD and DD than shoes.
Would sure be great to see (I forget what to call it!) the modified SCORE for SD and DD for say TKO/A, UBZII(T)/A, HiLo/A!
Thanks for all you do.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks