Does anyone here use Uston APC?

[Blitzkrieg]

I never used it but my dual level 2 and level 3 count with 2 dimensional cancellations my best times are just under 20 seconds and most often about 22 seconds for a deck of cards. I just try to get accuracy and let the speed happen as it does. My worst times are about 28 seconds. I would put my average time around 23 or 24 seconds to count down a deck. With just a level 3 count I would think with enough practice and average time of about 20 seconds or so should be easy enough to hit. Of course you would want to side count aces so that might slow you down a hair but side counting issues usually aren't speed. For some reason some people find side counting hard. I never counted without a side count so to me it is just part of what is normal. I remember trying HILO just to see how much faster it was but it didn't get me any extra speed. I probably didn't practice enough to get fast at it but I never got as fast as the count I was using at the time and I would feel my playing decisions were really poor without an ace neutral count. I am sure with enough practice I could be significantly faster with HILO but I can keep up with the fastest dealers out there so why do I need to be faster.

I'm not very familiar with the counting strategies that you are using but under 20 seconds sounds fairly quick. Counting a level 1 system is pretty easy for me and I'll just go ahead and say that I can count all level 1 strategies in under 15 seconds for a single deck of cards. Level 3 is providing the challenge that I seek.

[Blitzkrieg]

A tiny piece of unsolicited advice.

Counting ALL of the ranks, as you must with UAPC

Is a mistake, not because of "speed" but because

fatigue and errors are always with us.

There are counts like Hi-Opt II or AOII

Which are just as strong and way easier

to utilize without fatigue or errors.

Thanks for the advice but I am willing to accept the challenge of learning something new. I do and am making counting errors in this early process but I have also seen great improvement in my own training with the slight increase in speed and memorization while counting UAPC.

[Blitzkrieg]

I got a kick out of the title of this thread, because if memory serves me correctly, Uston didn't even use the Uston APC!

That's great KJ, maybe I'll do something Uston never did and take his own counting strategy into the casino to do battle with them.

[Blitzkrieg]

I never used Uston APC before but anyone who master the Uston APC full indices and with side count of Aces close to a perfect a perfect game of blackjack. Assuming you don't make any errors but it will be hard to do with Uston APC.

I'm glad I'm up for the challenge.

[Shadowless]

I can see why Uston APC can be such a difficult count to master compared to Hi-Lo.
The two-card tag value combinations can equal -6, -4, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, for a total of 11 different two-card tag value combinations.

The way I would approach this count, or any unfamiliar count, as I did when I mastered AOII, is to first become familiar with two-card tag value combinations. I wouldn't even bother attempting to keep a running count through a deck yet. I flipped over two cards at a time and recited what their summed tag value equaled to, as well as recognizing what cancels out. Once I mastered reciting the combinations, I did the running count, then after that I dealt two decks to myself while keeping the running count and would stop every time I saw a potential index play and would calculate the true count. This approach helped me tremendously, and maybe it'll help you as well.

Similar to learning how to play the piano or any musical instrument, accuracy is most important and speed will develop over time.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Moses,

Halves is a fine count, especially for shoe games.

Like UAPC, Halves has been all but relegated to the dustbin of A.P. history.

Like UAPC, Halves is unnecessarily difficult when there are better alternatives.

[Blitzkrieg]

I've already mastered the 2 card combination values. I have no problem flipping 2 or 3 cards at once and maintaining the RC for UAPC. Other methods I use are dealing out 3-5 player hands and a dealer hand where I get the RC with no playing decisions. Then other times I will deal out 3 or so hands and then play them to basic strategy while maintaining the RC, then flip back to a 2 card deck countdown. There are 4 different methods I am doing to increase accuracy and speed while working with this strategies RC. I did a 2 card count down awhile ago and did it in 24 seconds with no mistakes. Cancellations aren't as easy compared to level 1 strategies but when you get a 2,7 or another 2 card value that equals up to +3 you get a cancellation there that I pair up with a 10. When I count down the deck without flipping the cards 2 at a time or dealing hands those 2 card +3's cancel real well with a 10. Another good cancellation is a 19 for a value of -4 and cancelling with a 3,4 3,6 4,6 4,7 6,3 6,4 7,3 7,4 combination. That is going to be the key for me to get the speed under 20 seconds consistently, if I can do that.

I know if I can deal and count as fast as I can deal then I will have no problem keeping the RC with the casinos fastest dealers. I have to be faster than the dealer.

[Blitzkrieg]

Moses,

Halves is a fine count, especially for shoe games.

Like UAPC, Halves has been all but relegated to the dustbin of A.P. history.

Like UAPC, Halves is unnecessarily difficult when there are better alternatives.

I guess I'll soon have my chance to knock the dust off. Some people have to do things the hard way.

[seriousplayer]

Serious player said:

F Y I Hi-Opt II "comes out on top." Ask Norm.

With that said, the "Tarzan Count" and The "Gordon Count" are,

literally, (not figuratively) perfect in that their wagering and playing choices

correlate to those made by Combinatorial Analyses at 0.99 !

Uston APC:

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

Betting Correlation =.91
Playing Efficiency= .69
Insurance Correlation = .90

HI-OPT II

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

Betting Correlation =.91
Playing Efficiency= .67
Insurance Correlation = .91


The betting correlation,playing correlation, and insurance correlation for both strategy is very close. I don't understand why would HI-OPT II outperform Uston APC. Theortically, both counts should perform really close. I looked at "Modern Blackjack" Volume 1 and I don't see Uston APC being compared. I do see HI-OPT II and Halves being compared to each other in the Strategy Comparison section of Modern Blackjack with all the other counts. However, it was documented that Don Schlesinger and John Auston simulated the HI-OPT II over other counting system Revere and Uston APC and HI-OPT II outperform them both. I wonder is it because HI-OPT II used newer indices than the Uston APC in the simulation. In other words in the simulation was the indices for Uston APC from "Million Dollar Blackjack" or new full indices has been generated for Uston APC using index generator like CVDATA.

I will leave it up to Don or John Auston to answer this question regarding the simulation of HI-OPT II against Revere and Uston APC.

[Three]

Here is the problem. My understanding, according to KJ, is todays game rules in a multi-deck/player game simply are not worth the extra effort of thse complex counting systems. In single deck, where they are more worthwhile, the are too many options takin away to warrant a Gordon, Tarzan, Ace side count Hi Opt, or column count. Based on what is given, you will need a gun more powerful than Hilo to sustain any long term worthwhile. But these High powered machine guns will only get you into trouble. Double Deck? I'm not sure. May be a different story with deep pen.

This all depends on the way you look at the gain. If you look at as simple hourly increase the gain may be not worth it. If you look at it in a percentage increase as games deteriorate the percentage increase keeps getting larger. Likewise with gains from higher certainty of results from gathering and using more specific information. You deal with n0 used to define an exponential relationship with the long run. Increasing percentage gains here have an exponential affect on time to the long run. Then you have RoR. As you get crappier and crappier games risk goes up. Wait you give up not using a more complicated approach has a bigger and bigger negative impact on your game. If you look at it from more of a BR ride perspective, meaning the swings, necessary BR, time to long run realization and risk to reward (basically all the important stats to be concerned about in BJ), the worse the conditions get the more important a complicated approach becomes in order to be successful. If you have a monster BR your only concern is hourly. You have the BR to deal with all the rest. If like most you don't then you should be checking into the cost and gain to various approaches across a broad spectrum of BJ stats. The results will probably surprise you based on the advice that was better given in the past and has become a mantra of the big BR player because it still fits their situation.

It is funny how the proper attack has evolved. In the infancy of BJ the rules were so good the hourly gain was significant for complex approaches and everyone thought seriously about going more complex even though simple was at its most effective back then. Then the casinos wised up and the hourly gain shrunk as shoe games and other things came into the picture. Then the rules and conditions got worse and worse to the point that the ride for your BR changed significantly. A larger and larger BR was required so the casinos kept busting out would be counters BRs at a higher and higher rate and the safe BR amount soared. It has gotten to the point that for most players complex approaches should be looked at more seriously. Only teams (usually large BR but always hitting n0 quickly compared to the solo straight counter) and extremely well BRed players can use straight counting only and have a comfortable situation with the simple approach.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

KJ has his opinion and so does Tthree. Opinions are like assholes - we all have one.

I ignore those not properly backed up with (correct) statistical data AND empirical observation.

Over the last 1.5 decades I have trained approx. 24 people who have approached me via various

websites such as this. In EVERY case, the supplicant presented slight variations on a common theme:

Condensed summary: "I learned to count (Hi-Lo, Red-Seven, K.O.) I haven't succeeded. Help."

Those I trained in Hi-Opt II or ZEN (and wagered within their bankrolls) dramatically improved their lot at 21.)

In the Final Analysis, the Bottom Line on this Issue, is that Your Mileage may Vary, and One Size Doesn't Fit All."

Sorry guys, I just couldn't resist a quadruple mixing of metaphors. L.O.L.

[Freightman]

[QUOTE=ZenMaster_Flash;161611][COLOR=#000080]

Opinions are like assholes - we all have one.

Classic - will add to my repertoire - nice to see you.

[seriousplayer]

ZenMaster_Flash said : In EVERY case, the supplicant presented slight variations on a common theme:

Condensed summary: "I learned to count (Hi-Lo, Red-Seven, K.O.) I haven't succeeded. Help."

I am interested in getting to the source of the problem here then switching to another count. One problem solving skill I developed is when something is not working whether is it a card counting system or anything in life. I ask myself is it my problem or is it the problem with the card counting systems Hi-lo, Red Seven, KO? What I am doing wrong? What can I do differently? Is my risk of ruin too high? etc..

There are studies done on Hi-Lo, Red-Seven, and KO with statistical data that it does provide a player with an advantage. Are the wagering within their bankroll when they are using those three counts?