Has anyone here ever tried to keep two counts?

**BigJer** · 09-02-2014, 11:09 AM

Maybe HiLo along with 10 Count for insurance?

Just wondering. Jeez, I have a hard enough time with one count.

**BigJer** · 09-02-2014, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Tthree

I keep a level 2 count and a level 3 count simultaneously. It is a really really hard technique to master. To do it quick you are doing multi-dimensional cancellations of card groups. The 10 count would actually be stronger for many playing decisions. This is just a feeling but I am sure I am right. PE for the 10 count is pretty strong compared to HILO.

With all sue respect, are you kidding me about the 2 level and three level counts? lol.

**Blitzkrieg** · 09-02-2014, 11:45 AM

If your using REKO you can subtract the amount of 7's that have been seen and add in the IRC to your running count with respect to how many decks are in play and your using HiLo.

**Blitzkrieg** · 09-02-2014, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tthree

I keep a level 2 count and a level 3 count simultaneously. It is a really really hard technique to master. To do it quick you are doing multi-dimensional cancellations of card groups. The 10 count would actually be stronger for many playing decisions. This is just a feeling but I am sure I am right. PE for the 10 count is pretty strong compared to HILO.

Which level of strategy do you use as your main counting strategy in which you deviate to a level 2 or 3 count mid-game, the level 2 or level 3 count?

**DSchles** · 09-02-2014, 02:44 PM

I have to wonder just how much these extra mental gymnastics are worth, especially in a shoe game, and given that you are prone to mistakes.

I sincerely question the extra value that a perfect-play computer, which reckons every card played, to afford perfect betting and perfect playing decisions, has over, say, Hi-Opt II, with a side of aces.

You talk about how sophisticated your approach is but not about how much extra return you think you are getting for it.

Don

**BigJer** · 09-02-2014, 02:55 PM

Thanks Don.

**DSchles** · 09-02-2014, 05:33 PM

You didn't answer the more important part of my commentary.

Don

**21forme** · 09-02-2014, 06:33 PM

I sidecount aces in DD games with HiLo and use it for INS plus a few other index plays.

KJ · 09-02-2014, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by 21forme

I sidecount aces in DD games with HiLo and use it for INS plus a few other index plays.

This is exactly what I do, 21forme. And really, it's not even that I intended to side count Aces, but in the DD game, it's almost hard not to.

Originally Posted by DSchles

I have to wonder just how much these extra mental gymnastics are worth, especially in a shoe game, and given that you are prone to mistakes.

I sincerely question the extra value that a perfect-play computer, which reckons every card played, to afford perfect betting and perfect playing decisions, has over, say, Hi-Opt II, with a side of aces.

You talk about how sophisticated your approach is but not about how much extra return you think you are getting for it.

Don

Don's view is exactly my own view (and that is surely no coincidence). Slight benefit - increased error = minimum gain. Everyone decides for themselves what is and isn't worth there time and effort, but in my opinion, just not worth it. You are spending too much time and effort for a very minimal gain. "Chasing pennies", if you will.

"prone to more mistakes" --- this is the point that we bump up against, in every higher count and side count discussion or debate. The guys using more sophisticated counts and side counts, just refuse to acknowledge that there higher error rates.

**Blitzkrieg** · 09-02-2014, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Tthree

Level 2 count is for strategy decisions. I don't want to hijack the thread. My approach is too hard to be useful for others. I have been asked not to talk about it in other threads because I use a 2 dimensional application to the two counts which most players can't even understand. Talking about the 2 dimensional application just confuses them. Please don't derail the thread by asking me to explain things again. I have explained it all before in other threads. I can't quantify what you get out of the 2 dimensional application but my results are so far above what a linear application would be for the same data that I have to say it is well worth the time (many months of training) and extra effort.

Trouble is when you have a rare losing week you can't help but wonder if you weren't making mistakes. I had a big losing week followed by a medium losing week after substantial wins almost every week for 40 weeks in a row. I couldn't help but think I was making mistakes even though I know you can't always win. I still think I must have been making mistakes. With a simpler approach I would need to have a lot longer run of poor performance to question accuracy of counting and it's application. Both because mistakes aren't as easy to make and large negative swings are what is expected rather than an unusual occurrence. With any count if you play long enough and your chances of being ahead are high. If that time frame is small enough that you can reach it in a short amount of play you don't expect many losses in that time frame or longer.

I took a longer trip this year and crashed them for 2 days and got crushed for 2 days to come out barely behind at the end of the trip. It was really frustrating. Every great count had me playing against aces and T's almost every round for 2 days. Most of the time my hands sucked (but not bad enough to surrender) against a great upcard with large bets out so I was losing the vast majority of the matchups. I had some unreal runs of dealer BJ's in a row and almost all had a T up so I couldn't even take insurance.

It doesn't seem like your hijacking the thread. The OP asked an question and you responded. My question was basic and to the point, I did not ask for many details in which you obliged regardless. Since you like to boast that you enjoy keeping two simultaneous counts while playing BJ I was hoping that you would elaborate on the subject a bit.

A player can wonder if they are making mistakes but a player of your caliber... I would expect you to know when you are making mistakes at the table, not if you think your making them.

**Three** · 09-02-2014, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by KJ

Don's view is exactly my own view (and that is surely no coincidence). Slight benefit - increased error = minimum gain. Everyone decides for themselves what is and isn't worth there time and effort, but in my opinion, just not worth it. You are spending too much time and effort for a very minimal gain. "Chasing pennies", if you will.

For the OP's suggestion of dual count usage I agree with KJ and Don. There is just not a lot to be gained through increased PE. The max is around 20 to 30%. For the OP's suggestion it is much much smaller. Betting advantage estimates on the other hand are extremely poor for the simple approach. They have a very wide bell curve of actual advantage for the specific deck composition around the average advantage for the current TC for each TC.

Originally Posted by KJ

"prone to more mistakes" --- this is the point that we bump up against in every higher count and side count discussion or debate. The guys using more sophisticated counts and side counts, just refuse to acknowledge that there higher error rates.

I don't like the term "prone to". Mistakes are part of being human and must be considered as the cause of any unusual downswing. Unfortunately you will never be certain about mistakes when thinking along these lines. I know my strengths and weaknesses and made some rules to assure I would play relatively mistake free (I don't buy that anyone plays mistake free no matter what their approach). I stated outright that on the big downswing I had violated these rules leading me to not be able to dismiss mistakes so easily. I then stated that I believe mistakes were a part of what happened because I can't dismiss it so easily. Then KJ comes back with sophisticated counters refuse to admit a higher probability of errors just after I did just that. Perhaps the key word there is higher because I have tested myself with tasks of varying degrees of mental difficulty and errors occur for me far more frequently performing tasks that don't challenge me. I am really good at mental math and a very odd duck so I don't expect others to be the same but for me and some other great matheletes this is the case. Boredom and lack of a challenging task is what causes more frequent mistakes for many that are up to and excited about tackling a challenge..

**Three** · 09-02-2014, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg

A player can wonder if they are making mistakes but a player of your caliber... I would expect you to know when you are making mistakes at the table, not if you think your making them.

If you knew you were making mistakes then you wouldn't be making them would you. This makes your premise an oxymoron of sorts.