Best count system for 2 deck, 4 deck, 6 deck, 8 deck?

[KJ]

I think changing counts should only be considered after giving a year plus run with any of the counts. I believe if you commit to one count (like one wife) then you can indeed make it work As you learn more about how to use it effectively, get better at deck estimation and optimal spreading, you will win.

Thinking about changing counts is like thinking about dumping your wife every time she is not in the mood or the lovemaking was not as good as you had expected.

I am going to go ahead and 'publicly' endorse this post, as well as click the helpful button. I could have done without the wife dumping analogy, but I do get the feeling players on this forum are jumping around between counts like a flavor of the month.

Although some of us, myself and T3 and ZM_Flash have opposing views on the 'count debate', I think we will all agree that perhaps the single most important thing is to play the count that you choose well, to learn and play it so well, that you come as close as possible to eliminating errors and error rate. You can only do that if you really learn and play your count for a while.

Switching counts regularly is going to lead to more errors and just a couple errors can more than cancel out any gain you think you are getting from a higher count. When I experimented with a higher level count earlier in my career, I played it for 18 months before I decided it was not for me.

[Freightman]

I am going to go ahead and 'publicly' endorse this post, as well as click the helpful button. I could have done without the wife dumping analogy, but I do get the feeling players on this forum are jumping around between counts like a flavor of the month.

Although some of us, myself and T3 and ZM_Flash have opposing views on the 'count debate', I think we will all agree that perhaps the single most important thing is to play the count that you choose well, to learn and play it so well, that you come as close as possible to eliminating errors and error rate. You can only do that if you really learn and play your count for a while.

Switching counts regularly is going to lead to more errors and just a couple errors can more than cancel out any gain you think you are getting from a higher count. When I experimented with a higher level count earlier in my career, I played it for 18 months before I decided it was not for me.

The wife dumping analogy adds flavor to Zee's posts. A certain charm, if you will.
KJ, as usual, is bang on regarding execution of your preferred count. He has very well expressed his point of view in numerous prior posts.

I'll express it in a slightly different fashion.
KJ plays hi Lo - I play halves. He works, in theory, 66 minutes to my 60 to theoretically achieve a comparable result. Neither of us are about to change. I tend to play all - KJ Wongs in and out aggressively. He can apparently backcount simultaneously different tables. His eyes are clearly better than mine. In summary, by inference, I clearly play far more negative situations than KJ - I need my extra 10%. His "inferior" count makes him far more efficient meaning, in proportion, he plays far more positive situations than I.

Simply food for thought, but as expressed by others time and time again, the best system for an individual is the one that can be executed flawlessly.

[KJ]

The wife dumping analogy adds flavor to Zee's posts. A certain charm, if you will.
KJ, as usual, is bang on regarding execution of your preferred count. He has very well expressed his point of view in numerous prior posts.

I'll express it in a slightly different fashion.
KJ plays hi Lo - I play halves. He works, in theory, 66 minutes to my 60 to theoretically achieve a comparable result. Neither of us are about to change. I tend to play all - KJ Wongs in and out aggressively. He can apparently backcount simultaneously different tables. His eyes are clearly better than mine. In summary, by inference, I clearly play far more negative situations than KJ - I need my extra 10%. His "inferior" count makes him far more efficient meaning, in proportion, he plays far more positive situations than I.

Simply food for thought, but as expressed by others time and time again, the best system for an individual is the one that can be executed flawlessly.

I like this analogy overall, Freightman, although I could have done with out the term 'inferior' in regards to count. I like to think more in terms of simple approach vs complex approach. But I don't regard it as 'inferior'. But, I'll let it slide.

I do have pretty good vision, but just to reiterate something I am sure you are aware of, on secondary tables, I am looking at pips and paint, more than numbers. That does make it a little easier.

[Freightman]

KJ, put the term inside quotations to reinforce my feeling that it is not inferior, though considered inferior by others. I know several good counters (and some bad ones) who use hi Lo. I started with hi Lo, teaching myself the system. I was encouraged by another individual to make the switch to halves - approx 7 years ago.

Also, I inferred that it was pips u were referring to. Regardless, back counting multi tables simultaneously is not something I can do.

[KJ]

KJ, put the term inside quotations to reinforce my feeling that it is not inferior, though considered inferior by others.

Fair enough.

[Fireman]

I agree with KJ and Freightman. It is all about playing the system that suits your style and skill level. There is certainly added EV in being able to back count multi tables. That could more than offset the gain from a more complex system with an ace side count.