Which is best for each of the deck counts?
What's best for 2 deck, 4 deck, 6 deck, 8 deck?
I know Hi-lo but when going to 2 deck something tells me its highly inaccurate? Maybe I need to change the way I'm doing TC calculation for 2 deck?
Which is best for each of the deck counts?
What's best for 2 deck, 4 deck, 6 deck, 8 deck?
I know Hi-lo but when going to 2 deck something tells me its highly inaccurate? Maybe I need to change the way I'm doing TC calculation for 2 deck?
THIS response does not single out Hi-Lo as it is a commentary on
the suitability of any Level One Card Count, any ACE-Reckoned Count,
and worst of all, any unbalanced count.
Hi-Lo is NOT good for a "pitch" game - meaning 2 or less decks.
That is because Hi-Lo bet-sizing is good, but Playing Efficiency is dreadful !
In a shoe game Bet Sizing is the most important aspect of our play.
With less decks in play, our Playing Efficiency is the dominant tactic !
This is coupled with the FACT that you cannot safely spread too wide in a
hand-held game with its lower House Edge !
Typically 6-1 at Double Deck and 4 to 1 at Single Deck will have you being
considered for an "86'ing."
That is because Hi-Lo bet-sizing is good, but Playing Efficiency is dreadful !
In a shoe game Bet Sizing is the most important aspect of our play; while
With less decks in play, our Playing Efficiency is the dominant tactic !
This is coupled with the FACT that you cannot safely spread too wide in a
Hand-held game with its lower House Edge !
Typically a spread of 6-1 at Double Deck and 4 to 1 at Single Deck
will have you being considered for an immediate "86'ing."
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 06-23-2015 at 06:04 AM.
I disagree with the blanket statement about all ace-reckoned counts. Although PE is extremely important in a pitch game, there are many factors to consider when selecting a system. I alternate between DD and 6D games and found it to be too much of a problem to maintain two distinct counting systems. I have no issue with using Zen (or other ace-reckoned counts) in a pitch game. I like the flexibility to move from one game to another within a session, depending on conditions.
I agree that Hi Lo is better suited for a shoe game, but I think this is an adequate system for a beginner to learn (and even stick with). Unless an AP is bent on playing only DD, there is nothing wrong with a level-one, ace-reckoned count.
IMHO, just stick with Hi-LO. There are not enough 1 and 2 deck games to worry about. Once you're putting down real money, you'll find yourself mostly playing shoes.
http://www.richardmunchkin.com/2012/...-counters.html
And, I'm giving this advice as someone who learned to solve a Rubik's cube when I was 7 years old
For a beginning player, there is nothing wrong with hi Lo at pitch games. As you become more proficient, you may want to consider a side count or two, that will help you tweak PE. I think you're quite correct by suggesting, I'll rephrase slightly, maintaining seperate counts for dd and shoe would be difficult for many players.Originally Posted by Fireman
I play shoes only in my general locale, and occasional DD when in Vegas - not enough to worry about a seperate ace neutral system for pitch.
I agree with ZenMaster about the flexibility of Zen (for pitch and shoe games). I also have no problem recommending Hi Lo, especially for the shoe game. In fact, Hi Lo may be a better fit for some; depending on the type of game played and the individual's skill set. Evaluating the PE and BC of a system is just one piece of the puzzle. I certainly do not wish to infer that Hi Lo is inferior, because it may suit a certain player better and therefore be more valuable.
I have always used ace neutral counts and I didn't have anyone to teach me when I started. I just scribbled some stuff out ad came up with a count. Things became a lot easier when I later learned that my count was Hiopt1 and the work was done for me by someone else but I did quite well for the several years I just did what my back of the napkin calculations said to do. The point is to me an ace neutral count is basic because that is what I learned first. I think telling people to learn something too easy first is hurting their whole later career. They never spend enough time preparing to use a system so the never put enough effort into any attempt to upgrade. It should take months to learn what you need to know to be prepared to crush todays game. What is the point of learning a system you can master in weeks. All that does is have you out getting your ass handed to you in situations you should have learned to avoid altogether. If I were training someone from scratch I would teach them an ace neutral count from the get go. I would tell them it is easy and just takes enough practice to get used to. If they were serious about card counting they would get it and would not think it hard. they don't know what is easy or hard. Their perception of these things are formed by their own experience. If they never know anything else why would they think it was hard. Once they got it down they would be ready for more advanced counting.
Basically to get to the question at hand I would pick a great count for pitch games and use it for shoes as well rather than yse two counts or pick the one that would be best for shoe games. Hiopt2/ace side is the count.
As this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam, I hope this thread does not go off on a tangent. Although I would classify myself in the school of "simpler is better", I keep an open mind and recognize the merit to both sides of the argument. I have played around with ace neutral counts in the past, and I will not rule out switching to one in the future. However, I believe that even an advanced pro can benefit more by focusing on other aspects of the game, aside from picking up an extra miniscule edge in EV.
I disagree with the argument of viewing each system in absolute rankings and considering one inferior to the other. For my style, Zen works just fine and I believe it has led to increased longevity.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks