A level one count might be fine Blackjack but it's pretty useless for Spanish 21.
Originally Posted by 1plus1equals3
Sounds to me like you want to go do a test run of your counting skills in a real casino environment and your trip bank of $1000 is really your "working capital" for the test run, and you want it to last long enough to get some decent mileage out of your test run. For your goals, focus more on getting more hands of experience counting and betting. Your count measures your advantage (different counts perform differently) and what you bet and when you bet it will drive your profitability. If your bank is replenishable, I wouldn't worry about a lifetime RoR for now. CVCX or BJRM will compute your risk of Trip Ruin for the hours that you play off your $1000.
If I were you, I would start with a 2D game. The count will rise and fall more quickly then in an 8D game so you can better test your bet sizing and play variations. If the only game available is the 8D game, you better find the lowest minimum you can, like $3 or $5 game and test yourself with a 1-8 spread. You might get lucky and hit some positive variance, but don't be surprised if you play perfectly and lose it all. I wouldn't worry about wonging until you're comfortable that you can hold the count, size your bets, and play the hands in the face of all the distractions. If you backcount an 8d game with the plan of entering at TC +2, you won't get much table playing time. Don't get me wrong, back counting/wonging is good to practice. It just doesn't sound like that's the thing to concentrate on at this stage of your development.
Maybe be the best idea is to save up $5k and go to Vegas or similar venue where you can find lots of lower minimum 6D and 2D games
Did you guys even consider what ZenMaster posted. Playing for 22 years. Talking about the swings in BJ. Crediting multilevel counting with a more certain success. How many times have I heard KJ say if he could go back in time he wouldn't use a level 1 count. That is a common sentiment of most on the boards. Then you start talking about variance or the swings more accurately when BJ is your only source of income. A higher EV (level 2 count) with the same spread, practically the same SD, means the swings will be more tolerable. If you can't stomach the swings you get out. We hear KJ post of downswings of 6-9 months. The level 2 users experience about half that. Tarzan measures it in like a week to 10 days as a worst case downswing after about 20 years of play. The downswings definitely become more palatable when your bets and plays become much more exact. The point about a level 1 count and shuffle tracking is definitely valid. And a simpler count also lends to being more able to count down multiple tables. So some that have the visual acuity for the latter or actually has the skill for the former (many lose their shirts because they aren't honest about their ability to ST).
For ZM the 2 decades ago level 2 count with side counts meant a lot in EV given the easier playing conditions he described. It also meant the swings were something he could stomach enough to allow him to leave the medical profession. These level 1 count guys are so sensitive that the can't even see the points made in a simple post or allow themselves to admit that for some people multi-level counts are a much better fit. Each person is tasked with finding the count and style of play that best suits their abilities, tolerance for swings and opportunities. For some that is a really simple count and for others it is not. ZM commented on his personal experience and if you took the time to read and contemplate what was said any reasonable take on it should agree with the validity of his comment rather than change the context of his comment to modern times where the game of BJ is a shadow of what it once was. Next time try understanding what was posted before going into a knee jerk infantile tirade. Then comment on what conditions in todays game still support the multi-level count attack and what does not. I believe the OP is trying to find single and double deck games as her preferred game. Most would suggest multi-lebvel counts or ace neutral counts for attacking these pitch games.
As for the mixture of shoe and pitch, a common recommendation from respected experts is learn the HIOPT I indices and use HIOPT I for pitch and HILO for shoe. You can always use HILOPT if you can keep 2 level 1 balanced counts at once but in these days when few ever learn more advanced counting techniques it is probably above most peoples abilities.
Last edited by Three; 01-15-2014 at 06:12 AM.
Presumably its a H17 game??
If so and you can find a $3 game spreading $3 to $30 and wonging out whenever the TC drops below 0 is not an awful game, just the last thing before awful. You have very little risk of losing the $5K but expect to possible have swings of $1K. That doesn't mean you'll lose your first $1K right off the bat. You could get up a little then lose a grand and just have a couple hundred left. Anything can happen. You could get up 2 grand and lose it all.
If you have to play $5 minimum its more likely you'll lose more, the fluctuations are bigger, but you still have a fighting chance.
Keep in mind a $3 game will have hourly fluctuations of around $200, the $5 game over $300. (2 standard deviations for those who are checking)
Get CVBJ and CVCX from this website.
I am certain that you never heard KJ say if he could go back in time that he wouldn't use a level 1 count. I don't know where you got that from. As a matter of fact, I did use a level 2 count, RPC, for 18 months and switched back to a level one count after deciding the difference was minimal if any. Furthermore, I have not heard that sentiment expressed very often. Quite the contrary. One pretty respected author, who participates on this site and uses a level 2 count, told me just the opposite, a couple years ago. He said he uses the level 2 because he learned it oh so many years ago, but if he were starting out today, and knew what he knows now, he would stick to a level one count. I'll let him decide if he wants to confirm. And that is the sentiment, I have often heard.
The second point, I would dispute is that level 2 uses will experience swings half as bad or long as level 1 users. That is a bunch of malarky! Where on earth did you dig up those figures? Data please? Severe downswings come from the fact, that card counting identifies times of small advantage to wager more at. That tiny longterm advantage is going to equate to big swings in each direction. A level 2 count isn't going to change that but a hair at best. Both will identify mostly the same situations. Results and swings will be similar. Very small difference.
The one point that I will concede is because of Flash's longevity, 20 years ago, when there were better conditions, it may have made a difference, or at least more of a difference. I am not all that knowledgable about 1990's BJ conditions as I was in grade school and Jr high at the time. But it is not the early 1990's. It is 2014 and most of us are dealing with mediocre conditions at best. I can appreciate that players from that era, still play a higher level count and there is no reason for them to switch. What I continue to object to is their inference to newer players that playing a higher count still has those benefits of 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when those days are gone for most of us, in most situations.
Last edited by KJ; 01-15-2014 at 07:55 AM.
By going back in time I meant playing 20 years ago not changing what you play now. You would be a fool to play a level 1 back then. You always said how it used to be worth it to use a level 2 when the games were juicier. Personally I think more along opposite lines. That the extra you get is much more significant now from using a level 2. I understand what the former point is hat you could get so much more from the "extra effort" (I find it effortless) but to me when your advantage shrinks to minimal as is the case today you need the extra even more even if the difference between the 2 is far less in actual dollars. The percent difference is what I am concerned about. The games were much more deeply dealt and the rules were much better. I remember my first year playing BJ in AC. Early surrender, dealt to about 1/2 deck left for the bad cuts and BS players had an advantage over the house off the top of the deck. You aren't going to find that game anywhere today. Everyone says that the level 2 counts were worth it for the games of yore.
Originally Posted by KJ
The second point, I would dispute is that level 2 uses will experience swings half as bad or long as level 1 users. That is a bunch of malarky! Where on earth did you dig up those figures? Data please?
T3, you really need to read this:
http://beyondnumbers.lvablog.com/201...pens/#more-140
I hope this clears up the confusion you have with using short term results to predict long term events.
Last edited by mofungoo; 01-16-2014 at 04:58 PM.
Comparing notes on one or 2 or a dozen players, looking at even a lifetime of play, is a ludicrously small sample size to say anything definitive like level 2 count users will experience swings half as long as level 1 count users. The fact is we can calculate these things. We can simulate them if we want. From a given point in time, the fact is a player has a 15.9% chance of being down after n0 hands. If a level 1 player (player A) has an n0 of 20,000 hands and a level 2 player (player B) has an n0 of 18,000 hands, then the likelihood of player A being down at 20,000 hands is identical to player B's chances of being down at 18,000 hands. Likewise, Player A is no more likely to be behind at 200,000 hands than Player B is at 180,000 hands. If n0 is 10% lower, in theory your downswings should last 10% less time, and that's without getting into the debate over whether you really get that full 10% benefit in the real world. You make a level 2 (or higher) count out to be far, far more beneficial than it really is. In truth, no advanced count (Tarzan count included) can give you the edges that most professionals today are seeking, but as long as we are talking about straight counting, let's at least be honest about what the maximum potential benefits really are. 50% shorter downswings is not one of them.
Something to consider for the OP w/r/t a Level 1 vs. Level 2 count is that if he ever decides to work with someone, Hi Lo is something like the lingua franca of card counters to the best of my knowledge. He is also much more likely to avoid errors with Hi Lo. I think it's an interesting idea, playing with an "experimental" bankroll to a get feel for games, but personally I would rather just hustle at a job until I had a more substantial bankroll so if I found I could play well, I could start actually making some money. Try to hustle for some low grade food/beverage comps, while you're at it, as your $ EV is going to be minimal.
Your post talks about how a level 2 count has a lower variance compare to a level 1 count system. ZenFlash_Master's post is about level one counts are not good enough to get the money. It is two different conversations. In other word you are talk about apples and Zen is talking about oranges. One is using a level one count with more variance doesn't mean that it doesn't get the money. What it means is that one will need to play longer to overcome the higher variance. So what you are saying is since "level one counts when used has a higher variance than level 2 counts" you could not making money using a level one count. Is that what you saying???
However, lower variance is better but it doesn't mean with higher variances you can't generate the same EV. Your post had me reading that with higher variances one can't generate any expected return. It seem like that is what you are trying to say.
Last edited by seriousplayer; 01-16-2014 at 09:33 PM.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks