Card counting strategy

[muckz]

For Fabian

I will offer you my two cents. If you must look for an unbalanced system that is superior to KO in terms of efficiency in performance. I would suggest you an unbalanced count system called the Adjusted KO. With the tags:

A-(-1)
2-(1)
3-2
4-2
5-3
6-2
7-1
8-0
9-0
10-(-2)

BC=.97, PE=.62, IC=.82 but the BC is still 1% less than the original KO system.

It is an unbalanced level 3 card counting system. I've been studying up on that system recently. The best part about the Adjusted KO is that all you need to do is double all KO indices, IRC, Key Count and pivot and the system is ready for use. Since it is similar to KO you can also apply the Color of Blackjack modification to the system to fix the problem of missing early opportunities early on in the shoe and overbet later in the shoe with no true count conversion.

Hope that helps.

A system with an imbalance of +8 per deck is not going to give results that correspond to Griffin measurements, unless it is true counted. For solely running count or hybrid running count systems it is best to have a pivot that acts as hilo True 2. If you want to break away from a level one count and remain imbalanced AND use running count mode only, then ubz2 is a very good choice. The improvement from lvl 1 to lvl 2 is noticeable, the improvement from 2 to 3 is very little.

[Bodarc]

I'm still not 100% confident with the terms betting coefficient, IC.. so if anyone could direct me to a webpage with clear explanations I would appreciate it.

http://qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage169.htm

[Bodarc]

a little more noticeable

[muckz]

For the system that I mention an imbalance of running count +8 per deck correspond to a true count of +4. The system is just using higher tag values. Could you please tell where in Griffin's book (page #) that he say the results will not correspond to his measurements? Are saying at according to Griffin the PE is not important to an unbalanced system?

"The improvement from lvl 1 to lvl 2 is noticeable, the improvement from 2 to 3 is very little."

What about lvl 1 to lvl 3? So the improvement will be very little?

PE is just a snapshot of a count at a certain point in a deck. Everything is optimized for this certain point. This system has a PE of .62, however, you will not even come close when factoring for the extreme amount of rounding needed for unbalanced counts,especially one that has an irc of 0 and pivot of 48!. I doubt this system is better than KO full using the method you described (I did a fairly quick cvdata check and I'm pretty sure I'm right). Griffin doesn't come outright and say unbalanced won't work. KO BJ came out in 1998, Griffin died in 1999. Do you think he had a lot of time to revise how he would measure PE for unbalanced systems? I wasn't following BJ back then but, I doubt people were really talking too much about the viability of an unbalanced count until that book.

[seriousplayer]

I doubt this system is better than KO full using the method you described (I did a fairly quick cvdata check and I'm pretty sure I'm right). Griffin doesn't come outright and say unbalanced won't work. KO BJ came out in 1998, Griffin died in 1999. Do you think he had a lot of time to revise how he would measure PE for unbalanced systems? I wasn't following BJ back then but, I doubt people were really talking too much about the viability of an unbalanced count until that book.

May I ask that you please paste the CVDATA check in this thread. I am curious to see what you did to compare it to KO-full? What indices and key count did you use to compare? For the count system I described if setting the IRC=0 a pivot of 48 will equal to KO true count of +4.

"PE is just a snapshot of a count at a certain point in a deck."

Why are you making up your own definition for PE (Playing Efficiency)? Where in the world did you read that PE is a snapshot of a count at a certain point in a deck?? The definition of PE is as follows:

"A description of the accuracy of any card counting system, usually expressed as a percentage or fraction. The closer to 1 the number is, the more accurate the system is in terms of indicating the proper strategy decision to be made."

That is all there is to the definition with nothing more added and subtracted from the definition.

"Griffin doesn't come outright and say unbalanced won't work"

Did I ask you did Griffin say unbalanced count don't work?? What I asked you was are you saying according to Griffin the PE is not important to an unbalanced system?

"This system has a PE of .62, however, you will not even come close when factoring for the extreme amount of rounding needed for unbalanced counts,especially one that has an irc of 0 and pivot of 48!."

It seem like you are a genius at this perhaps you can tell me what is the PE of this system due to the extreme amount of rounding.

"KO BJ came out in 1998, Griffin died in 1999."

The first edition of Knock Out Blackjack came out on 1996 the 1998 edition of Knock-Out Blackjack is a revision of the 1996 edition. Why does it matter when Knock-Out Blackjack came out? The first unbalanced count system was devised on 1986 (Red Seven Count) and Griffin was alive then.

[Blitzkrieg]

I used REKO Full for a year before switching to UBZ2 at the beginning of this year. I used CVData to generate the full set of indexes for all the different games (varying rules and number of decks) I play. The book by George C. is not really useful at all if you have CVData and CVCX, because you can generate all the index numbers yourself and get accurate optimal bet spreads. And the kindle version of the book has really bad images of the charts that make a lot of the numbers illegible.

Does the author of the book who came up with UBZ2 have the index plays listed in his book for the various games and rules for Blackjack? What is the title of the book? Were you successful in using REKO-F in the casinos, how about using the same strategy in sims?

[muckz]

May I ask that you please paste the CVDATA check in this thread. I am curious to see what you did to compare it to KO-full? What indices and key count did you use to compare? For the count system I described if setting the IRC=0 a pivot of 48 will equal to KO true count of +4.

"PE is just a snapshot of a count at a certain point in a deck."

1. Why are you making up your own definition for PE (Playing Efficiency)? Where in the world did you read that PE is a snapshot of a count at a certain point in a deck?? The definition of PE is as follows:

"A description of the accuracy of any card counting system, usually expressed as a percentage or fraction. The closer to 1 the number is, the more accurate the system is in terms of indicating the proper strategy decision to be made."

1. That is all there is to the definition with nothing more added and subtracted from the definition.

"Griffin doesn't come outright and say unbalanced won't work"

2. Did I ask you did Griffin say unbalanced count don't work?? What I asked you was are you saying according to Griffin the PE is not important to an unbalanced system?

"This system has a PE of .62, however, you will not even come close when factoring for the extreme amount of rounding needed for unbalanced counts,especially one that has an irc of 0 and pivot of 48!."

3. It seem like you are a genius at this perhaps you can tell me what is the PE of this system due to the extreme amount of rounding.

"KO BJ came out in 1998, Griffin died in 1999."

4. The first edition of Knock Out Blackjack came out on 1996 the 1998 edition of Knock-Out Blackjack is a revision of the 1996 edition. Why does it matter when Knock-Out Blackjack came out? The first unbalanced count system was devised on 1986 (Red Seven Count) and Griffin was alive then.

1. I don't really feel like explaining anything about measuring efficiency of counting systems, I won't be able to explain it how you would want to hear it, read the book if you want to know.

2. Don't really know what Griffin has to say about it but, PE is important to unbalanced systems. The problem is the card tags AND the pivot point have an effect on strategy for unbalanced systems.

3. The PE is .62, actual results may vary.

4. I should have taken more than 30 seconds to look at when books were published, I just took the last edition of each.

Cv can't handle betting spreads for such high running counts (may be able to make it work by adjusting irc), I doubled indices like you said, I'll tell you what tthe IBA was for flat bet H17 das,rsa 6d, 52/312 pen, heads up
adjusted KO or whatever you want to call it = -0.527
KO full = -0.479

[muckz]

Does the author of the book who came up with UBZ2 have the index plays listed in his book for the various games and rules for Blackjack? What is the title of the book? Were you successful in using REKO-F in the casinos, how about using the same strategy in sims?

He does have most games and their indices listed, it's not needed though. You can find basically all the info you need on blackjackinfo in the open source ubz2 thread.

[Three]

If memory serves Griffin determined his PE's using 20 cards left (SD) in the deck. He described it as interesting but not bizarre or something like that. That may still be the standard "snapshot" used to determine PE. I think they use something like 73 common plays in the calculation. A I guess you can see the problem with this being accurate for an unbalanced count.

[seriousplayer]

1. I don't really feel like explaining anything about measuring efficiency of counting systems, I won't be able to explain it how you would want to hear it, read the book if you want to know.

2. Don't really know what Griffin has to say about it but, PE is important to unbalanced systems. The problem is the card tags AND the pivot point have an effect on strategy for unbalanced systems.

3. The PE is .62, actual results may vary.

4. I should have taken more than 30 seconds to look at when books were published, I just took the last edition of each.

"I won't be able to explain it how you would want to hear it, read the book if you want to know."

I don't want you to explain it the way I want to hear it. What I don't like is people adding and subtracting things from definitions when they are not suppose to be added or subtracted. Explained it the way the definition is mean to be explain. For example, if you say something to a parrot how will a parrot say it back??

I am still interested to see how you compare the previous count I mention using CVDATA.

"The problem is the card tags AND the pivot point have an effect on strategy for unbalanced systems."

What is wrong about the pivot point when it is the same as KO true count of +4? The card tags are almost the same as the UBZII except with the 5 counted as a 3 and not a 2.

[muckz]

I live with a parrot, it likes to say hello when it wants to go to sleep.

[Blitzkrieg]

He does have most games and their indices listed, it's not needed though. You can find basically all the info you need on blackjackinfo in the open source ubz2 thread.

Do you know the name of the book and do you have a link to the thread at Blackjackinfo?

[Bodarc]

Hi Blitzkrieg

I don't know the exact thread muckz is talking about but this one should answer anything you need.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=2543