Maybe HiLo along with 10 Count for insurance?
Just wondering. Jeez, I have a hard enough time with one count.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
Bookmarks