Hi/Lo vs Speed Count

[Aslan]

You tend to lose the count playing live? If that's the case, I'd think no matter what system you use, you'd be just as easy to lose the count. Keep practicing, you'll get there.

CVBJ is a great tool for practicing. Before using it, I thought I was perfect. Once I got it and started using it, I realized I wasn't as good as I thought.

I don't know much about the speed count, but IMO it seems more like a "lose less" system, while HiLo is a "win more" system.

Use KO. If you lose the count using KO, you're not conscious. If you're not conscious, no count will help.

[Avincow]

I am familiar with speed count. I don't know why I didn't weigh in. There have been numerous discussions on Wizard's site and I guess I was just all "speed count discussioned out". (<- looks like that is probably not a real word...lol).

So here's the thing. I am a strong proponent of simplicity when it comes to card counting. I really think half the guys on this site make card counting much more complicated that it needs to be. It isn't rocket science, nor brain surgery and the gain from trying to make it more complicated is minimal in the real world.

Now simplicity IS the hi-lo count. There is absolutely no need to go any simpler than hi-lo. I mean +1, -1....really, we need to make that simpler? Not only is there no need, but if you attempt to go simpler, you are losing significant power.

Now, I am biased. I use hi-lo, and it has and continues to work just fine for me, playing mid-level stakes for a living.

Advantages of hi-lo that software comparisons don't take into consideration are that there are a number of more advanced plays that correlate and work better with hi-lo. Also, should you get involved in team play at some point, most use hi-lo.

One final thought. I always say that hi-lo or some similar level one count should be the count of choice for most people, based on today's conditions. The exceptions might be players that have access to really good single or double deck games and there just aren't many of those still around and maybe some very high stakes players, where a small increase in performance might actually translates into a little bit of money. And the funny things, most of the players in that second group, players that play for a living and play high stakes, still play hi-lo. If you stop and think about it, that speaks volumes.

Let the debate begin!

can you give an example of hi-lo being better suited for advanced techniques? If I'm tracking a slug of high cards through the shuffle, any respectable count will get the job done. If I'm going to use my main count to guess when to bet Lucky Ladies, I assume Hi-Lo will be a little bit better than some counts and little bit worse than some counts.

[MJGolf]

KJ says:

"Now simplicity IS the hi-lo count. There is absolutely no need to go any simpler than hi-lo. I mean +1, -1....really, we need to make that simpler? Not only is there no need, but if you attempt to go simpler, you are losing significant power.

Now, I am biased. I use hi-lo, and it has and continues to work just fine for me, playing mid-level stakes for a living.

Advantages of hi-lo that software comparisons don't take into consideration are that there are a number of more advanced plays that correlate and work better with hi-lo. Also, should you get involved in team play at some point, most use hi-lo."


Thanks for confirmation, KJ. I have read most of the classic books on counts from KO to Zen to Speed Count. Always go back to Hi/Lo and it seems to work for me. Not that I have given the other counts a chance playing. I just believe in simplicity and don't play enough to make a 2 level count work for me practically. Trying to avoid errors. Since you make a living at this game v most and eventually I want to form or find a team (or partner ala Blackjack Life by Tilton), this makes the most sense to me. I appreciate your analysis.

T-Three, while I may agree with your mathematical analysis, I can't as a practical matter for my personal situation. I don't have the time to practice complex counts to decrease n0 at "crappy games" (our games here are pretty decent when no ante) in lieu of reducing the amount of mistakes or mind stress v. the actual amount of time played. Your theory may work in the "computational" world of mathematics and someone who plays often or professionally but for the part time AP or one who plays as an avocation, as I do, it seems that it would waste too much time for the small amount of gain. More power to you on your "multi count" complexes. But for me, simplicity (and less mistakes) work. There are ENOUGH distractions playing in a casino WITHOUT me adding the distraction of too complex a count.

[Three]

can you give an example of hi-lo being better suited for advanced techniques?

I will follow KJ's example by not giving up anything but some advanced techniques require pretty intense mat that doesn't need to be made more complicated by side counts or confused about actual card ratios by multilevel counts. The math is already tough enough for most people. Only the truly gifted in math will be able to complicate things and be accurate.