The count debate

[RS]

I think what some people forget about -- about what KJ said from the PM he got -- when you hit that bad variance, it's because of the way the cards were in those situations. The adjustments in betting and adjustments in playing hands is slight.

On the other hand, a better system yields better results, at least on paper. I'd rather play a level two count with better results than a level one, since the difficulty is no that much of a change , and it also would allow me to play pitch and shoe games.

[AussiePlayer]

but in all fairness, I do not believe any of the experienced higher level count guys would ever try to lead someone to believe that they could not encounter a losing streak by playing a higher level count.

You'd be surprised, Tthree once tried to convince me that level 2 counts are a form of cover that can not only prevent, but also reverse backoffs!

Although, I'm not sure how a backoff would occur in the first place, maybe the player got backed-off using HiLo and then 'proved' that he wasn't counting by using a level 2 count.

[RS]

If I remember the post correctly (or at least a post I remember), Tthree was explaining a few situations. One situation is where the betting TC is positive, due to a lot of excess aces in the deck, but it would be negative if not accounted for the aces, also making the playing TC negative -- so if he had a big bet out due to all the aces, he still might be hitting a 12v4 or even 13v2, which would make one look like an idiot, especially with a huge bet out there. The other situation (which I'm not 100% versed on, so go with me here), might be where there is a huge excess of 9's and the matchup is a 15vT, with a small bet. Only at high TC's would someone stay on 15vT, but if the 9's are accounted for (which would increase the playing TC, in this matchup, as 9's both hurt the player but help the dealer, I reckon), might a player stay in this situation. But, with a small bet, the crew might not be able to peg Tthree as a counter, as a regular HiLo counter would not have a small bet out (low or negative TC) AND stay on 15vT. Maybe the betting TC is high because of excess Aces, but negative playing TC. Dealer gets an ace up, and player has a max bet out there. Tthree won't insure because playing TC is negative, while they're expecting him to insure without the blink of an eye, given his huge bet.


Those might not be 100%, as I don't know the adjustment for 15vT per excess 9 or whatever -- but the fact remains, there are [and will be] times when the betting TC is positive and the playing TC is negative [or vice versa], which would be able to confuse the crew, when a player is making a +TC play on a -TC bet, or a -TC play on a +TC bet.

[AussiePlayer]

No, he specifically stated that a player had a back-off reversed because the player was using a level 2 count, I have not taken this out of context.

[KJ]

Tthree once tried to convince me that level 2 counts are a form of cover that can not only prevent, but also reverse backoffs.

Not to pick on Tthree, which I have done enough of, although that was not my intention, but this is the kind of exaggeration and misrepresentation of expectations that I am talking about.

Another common claim from higher level count proponents is that for players who are building their bankroll, you could hit a positive variance run (winning period) and win 10% more, or a little faster than you you might playing a level one count. This might allow you to resize to your new bankroll earlier. But they never mention that you could hit a negative variance run or losing period, where the higher level count might just identify a few more max bet situations, for you to have that max bet out while losing, resulting in even greater loses (over the short run).

The bottom line is proponents of this argument 'cherry pick' their points, as most people arguing anything tend to do, not looking at the whole picture, which is in today's environment, with today's games and conditions, what count you play just doesn't matter all that much.. Much less a factor than it once was.

[Rudy]

I'm a level 2 user, but you are totally right with this point KJ... My point of view: Level 2 counts = Aggressiveness. That's why you got a few cents more, IMHO. Rudy.

[KJ]

I'm a level 2 user, but you are totally right with this point KJ... My point of view: Level 2 counts = Aggressiveness. That's why you got a few cents more, IMHO. Rudy.

Thank you Rudy. Glad you being a level 2 guy weighted in. Several other '2' guys have also done so, which is good because this isn't about level 1 vs level 2 players. "Hey some of my friends are level 2 players!". (That's the classic racial accusation comeback...)

But seriously, this isn't about what count is best or pitting groups of players against each other. It is simply about that the value of higher level counts in today's game is now often overvalued and misrepresented, which is encouraging newer players to make a decision about playing a certain count based on unrealistic expectations.

That is why I thought a non anonymous poll, by an objective party, which I believe would result in respected and knowledgeable players who use both simple level one counts as well as higher level counts, showing a consensus that the value of a higher level count is often overrated and misrepresented would be valuable. But, it appears, those qualified to be such an objective party aren't interested.

But regardless, I fell like this discussion has shead some light on the issue, that may help players, so it really is time to put this to bed for me.

[Math Demon]

I really hope to just win some money . I do not know how forum works and the debates that comes with it . I am very limited in abilities in many areas.It worrys me to be some kind of example. I should read more than try to post as I am not qualify in the knowledge in bj or have the proper English skill to post without a whole bunch of grammatical errors and misuse of vocabularies.

We are fighting amongst each other, instead of advancing our craft, and furthering our knowledge of the game. Such wasted energy!

I'm with stopgambling on this one. With my limited language and math skills, I will drastically reduce my postings.

I am making rapid, steady, and excellent progress on the Hi-Opt II (with ace side-count).



==> I will NOT be participating in any further debates or polls.

I have always maintained that the individual, newbie or vet, should decide on what count best suits them.

Why are we NOT recommending reKO or KO to newbies? Unless Griffin, Don, and Norm are all wrong, KO, reKO, and Red7 outperforms Hi-Lo (including ease-of-use).
http://qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage172.htm

[KJ]

I am making rapid, steady, and excellent progress on the Hi-Opt II (with ace side-count). However, KJ's posts have convinced me of the futility of a Level-2 count. As such, I am retraining myself in KO or reKO.

I didn't want to single you out by name, Math Demon, but you are one of the guys I have been thinking about during the recent part of this debate. I feel like you are one of several recent players, who made the decision based on unrealistic expectations because of misrepresentations and over-valueing by others.

Now, I do want to emphasize, that I am not suggesting that anyone that currently uses a higher level count should switch back (as I did). That too, is more trouble than it's worth. If you play a level 2 count, in your case hi-opt 2 and play it well, stick with it. Just know that the expectations and benefits, you were lead to believe may not be realistic.

[njrich]

I'd be curious as to which Author's actually use HI LO?

[Math Demon]

I didn't want to single you out by name, Math Demon, but you are one of the guys I have been thinking about during the recent part of this debate. I feel like you are one of several recent players, who made the decision based on unrealistic expectations because of misrepresentations and over-valueing by others.

Now, I do want to emphasize, that I am not suggesting that anyone that currently uses a higher level count should switch back (as I did). That too, is more trouble than it's worth. If you play a level 2 count, in your case hi-opt 2 and play it well, stick with it. Just know that the expectations and benefits, you were lead to believe may not be realistic.

... and a second strong proponent seemed to make the case even stronger and I suspect more new players are buying into this.

Hey KJ. Thanks very much for the compliment!


I am not a simpleton*. I knew who you were referring to on your first posts. I just didn't want to join a pointless discussion.

I still maintain that the individual, newbie or vet, should decide on what count best suits them.

I have successfully used KO. I have studied TKO, Red7, Hi-Lo, and now, Hi-Opt II (with ace side-count). I just do not notice any increase in difficulty (after a few days), so I don't see what I would be giving up using a Level-2 count.


* Contrary to what you might think, I am not weak-minded. I made my decision based on my abilities and thorough objective research. I also have a sizable bankroll. Thus, I want to have the greatest chance of success.

__

Now, I am not debating with anybody! Those are all just statements of facts.



- Demon

[Rudy]

Now I hope you know why I don't post too much Math. Like I said before, everything is written, asked, answered and tested about this amazing game, everything else is in our hands, is our choice and decision IMHO. Stop fighting... Good cards for all Rudy.

[Tbonz]

I'd be curious as to which Author's actually use HI LO?

Ask the moderator NT21, maybe he could point you in the direction of one.