Analyzing techniques for counting down a deck of cards

[Skull]

Hey guys!

(Sorry guys, I can’t make this post shorter )

I would like to improve the way I count down a deck of cards so as to make it more related to the game itself. I consistently count down a deck in about 23 seconds, but counting a full table, even without making playing decisions is MUCH more difficult to me. However, I really enjoy carrying a deck of cards with me to practice a bit at every little break during the day, so I would like to make these drills more profitable.

It seems that the consensus is that we should practice first by counting down cards one by one and then move to counting in pairs. There lie my problems:
1 – By counting in pairs, although I am using a level-1 system (REKO), I need to make a lot of +2 and -2 calculations. According to Page 259 of Modern Blackjack and to my own experience, this is much harder than to keep incrementing (or decrementing) by one;
2 – I keep looking for pairs that cancel each other out in full table drills, but I end up losing time by doing this and sometimes I even get lost, not knowing if I had already counted this or that card.

By paying attention to the way I actually count down a deck, I noticed that when two cards with the same non-zero tag come along, I sometimes hold the count until a card appears that would help canceling at least some of the previous cards. I decided that I could actually consider this in a slightly different technique to count the cards.

The way I am practicing now has the following advantages:
1 – I don’t make +2 or -2 calculations;
2 – I still profit for canceling pairs;
3 – It creates a framework for counting full tables in an orderly manner.

“Simply” stating, when I see a potential +2 or -2 pair, I count only the first card and wait (fractions of seconds) to see the next one; if it cancels out the previous uncounted card, I ignore the pair and go for the next card; if it is a zero-tag card, I count the previously uncounted card, ignore the zero-tag card and go for the next one; if it has the same tag value of the uncounted card, I simply count the uncounted card and wait for the next one.

Sorry if it’s confusing, I guess it is easier to show an example.

Using the same card sequence below, please note the way the different calculations are done (blank cells means we just ignore, we don’t count):

cards	2	9	5	4	T	5	T	A	T	3	8	6
1 by 1	+1		+1	+1	-1	+1	-1	-1	-1	+1		+1
by pairs	+1		+2				-2				+1
my way	+1		+1					-1				+1

The attached image shows 5000 possible realizations of the running count for each approach and the corresponding frequency distributions of the number we are adding or subtracting. (Note that the graphs don’t show zero counts, which are ignored, so the running counts are shorter than they should be.)

crazyCounting.jpg

Summarizing (year alright ):

- By counting one by one, we make an average of 44.2 actual calculations, because we only ignore around 15% of the cards, obviously (8 and 9 in REKO). So, 85% of the time we are making +1 or -1 calculations;
- By counting in pairs, we make an average of 16.5 calculations only, ignoring a total of 38% of the cards. However, we make around 35% of +2 or -2 calculations, which (for me) is VERY burdensome;
- By counting my way, we make just slightly more calculations than by counting in pairs - 18.2% - but we only make +1 or -1 calculations and more than 54% of the time we ignore the cards.

Any thoughts on this crazy analysis?

Thank you very much for reading it all (any survivor?).

Best of luck to you!

[Norm]

As always, what works for you works for you. There ain't no one way.

[blackjackplyr]

Hi Skull,

I get what you mean ( I think ). When I first started I went 1 by 1 until now I'm 20-25 secs. I also practice by throwing 2 cards out like you said, but I will count what ever is out. Meaning I won't hold the count until a cancel comes out.
But I also use your way! Usually when I'm fanning the cards from one hand to another or just trying to show off speed to some friends who are bewildered by counting.

I personally think 1 by 1 and by pairs will be the most beneficial. In the casino I count down pairs as the second card comes out for each hand, and then 1 by 1 for each hit.

I have done 'your way' at the casino but I noticed that I forgot if I had counted the card or not. Also, I've come to the point where I'm at +1 and looking for that -1 to cancel and it's not there and now have for 4 low cards that I need to count. It pushes my time and calculations back.

So all in all I usually stick with 1 by 1 and pairs. Hope it helps

-BJP

[jbuck]

I use the full table drills in CVBJ to do this - counting by ones during a deal will drive ya nuts and if you do it IRL, the dealer will be like "Why is this guy following each card dealt?"

[bigplayer]

Been around a long time, called counting by cancellation.

[Norm]

Zen is one of the best card counting systems invented; particularly for those that play both shoe and pitch games. But, I deduct a point on ease of use because the ten and ace are counted differently, which substantially reduces the ease of counting by cancellation. If you are at a table with a superfast dealer, you'll quickly see how valuable counting by pairs and cancelling is needed.

[Blitzkrieg]

If you can count down a deck in about 23 seconds I don't see why you have a problem counting down a full table "without" making playing decisions. I think that is easier where speed is being sacrificed for accuracy. If you can't do this good luck trying to tackle a 6D game. That would really hinder playing ability.
However you can incorporate drills to where your spreading out 5-7 individual hands to include a dealer hand, and deal out the whole deck or decks while maintaining the count for accuracy. Then you need to deal out 5-7 individual hands and play each one at correct basic strategy with index plays while maintaining an accurate count. Then switch back to speed drills. Then go to 2 decks and repeat until you work your way up to 6 decks.

When I practice for accuracy and speed I start my count at 0 and since your using REKO and I am, you will end at a +4 count for a SD. Therefore I count in 2's instead of 1's. Personally I cannot see how you count down the deck by 1's, that would be mentally taxing to me and I think it is easier to adjust the count by 2's using REKO. That way I make less calculations in my head as opposed to counting down the deck by one's while flipping each card out of the deck at a very fast pace.

I count down a DD the same way for speed and accuracy, just hang on to the count when it hits a +2 or -2 from the beginning and start adjusting the count from there so the count can only move up or down in increments of 2 since your cancelling as fast as you can flip the cards over one by one. Besides it also ends at +8 if you start your count at 0 using REKO.

If your getting lost in the full table drills a live DD game is going to give you a tough time until you can get the technique down but you should have it down with practice.

[Skull]

Hi Skull,


I have done 'your way' at the casino but I noticed that I forgot if I had counted the card or not. Also, I've come to the point where I'm at +1 and looking for that -1 to cancel and it's not there and now have for 4 low cards that I need to count. It pushes my time and calculations back.

So all in all I usually stick with 1 by 1 and pairs. Hope it helps

-BJP

Hey blackjackplyr!
That's funny because that's exactly what happens when I count by pairs and try to look for those which will cancel each other... but thanks, that's the kind of feedback I would like, to know how you guys do and evaluate if I will get in troble practicing this way.
I believe in time I will kinda mingle together all techniques and find what really works for me... or so I hope

Best of luck to you!

[Skull]

I use the full table drills in CVBJ to do this - counting by ones during a deal will drive ya nuts and if you do it IRL, the dealer will be like "Why is this guy following each card dealt?"

Yes, I think in time I will ask my wife to film me to see if I have too much tells. I am a little paranoid about cover, so I worry about what you are saying.
Best!

[Skull]

Been around a long time, called counting by cancellation.

Good to have a name for it! Thanks!

[Skull]

If you are at a table with a superfast dealer, you'll quickly see how valuable counting by pairs and cancelling is needed.

Yes, that's why I worry so much about proper technique. I love when the cards cancel each other, it makes everything much easier for me because I am very good at quickly ignoring them. But I see your point: to apply what I propose means that I kinda need to go through the cards in sequence, thus losing some time, in contrast to counting all of them in pairs.
For me now it is easier this way, but maybe I just need to practice more adding and subtracting by 2 in order to handle these fast dealers.
Keep practicing, keep practicing....

[Skull]

I don't even want to tell you guys how complicated some of the counts I use for some games and can keep up with the fastest dealers. If you could imagine keeping 2 counts simultaneously, a level 2 count and a level 3 count with 1/4 of the deck counted in both counts in opposite directions (1 positive tags and 1 negative tags) and at different magnitudes (different absolute tag values). We are talking learning 2 dimensional cancellations (multi-card cancellations and their affect on both counts simultaneously).

Hy Tthree!
I must tell you, you almost made me quit everything right now
Jesus Christ! I cannot imagine doing what you do. Impressive!

Just do what is within your abilities and practice, practice, practice.

Yes, there is no way around for sure.

I guess its like riding a bike. Once you get good at it it is hard to forget.

The problem is getting there in the first place, but I will... eventually....I hope

[Skull]

If you can count down a deck in about 23 seconds I don't see why you have a problem counting down a full table "without" making playing decisions. I think that is easier where speed is being sacrificed for accuracy. If you can't do this good luck trying to tackle a 6D game. That would really hinder playing ability.
However you can incorporate drills to where your spreading out 5-7 individual hands to include a dealer hand, and deal out the whole deck or decks while maintaining the count for accuracy. Then you need to deal out 5-7 individual hands and play each one at correct basic strategy with index plays while maintaining an accurate count. Then switch back to speed drills. Then go to 2 decks and repeat until you work your way up to 6 decks.

Hey Blitzkrieg, thanks for the advices!

When I practice for accuracy and speed I start my count at 0 and since your using REKO and I am, you will end at a +4 count for a SD. Therefore I count in 2's instead of 1's. Personally I cannot see how you count down the deck by 1's, that would be mentally taxing to me and I think it is easier to adjust the count by 2's using REKO. That way I make less calculations in my head as opposed to counting down the deck by one's while flipping each card out of the deck at a very fast pace.

I really want to understand you here. So you are saying you don't make +1 or -1 calculations, you ALWAYS wait for a +2 or -2 pair to form (in counting down a deck) and then update your count? So you of course ignore the pairs that cancel out and when a +1,0 or -1,0 pair appears, you wait for a non-zero tag card to appear to either cancel the pair out or create a +2 or -2 pair and only then you update the count? Is that it?

Man, this is interesting, because practicing this way would be a tactic such as "if you can't beat your enemy, join him". Since I have difficulties counting in pairs because it happens around 38% of the time while some 27% of the time I have to count +1,0 or -1,0 pairs, thus confusing me, I could simply ALWAYS count only +2 or -2 pairs.

That would be a great to practice in order to keep up with fast dealers I guess....

Is that what you really do?

Thanks a lot for your input!!