Settling the "Which count?" arguments

[alexost]

I liked your post, but what you said here actually doesnt make sense.
Shuffle tracking and full deck estimation in the same sentence?
Not good.
If you are using hilo with full deck estimation then almost by definition you cant possibly be tracking.

You're right. I did read Shuffle Trackers Cookbook a long time ago and Arnold wrote that you *must* be able to estimate to the nearest half deck in order to accurately calculate your count per slug and deal with smaller picks. etc. I thought about that after I was going over my post last night.

Thanks

[Fireman]

I just don't get all of this closed-minded "my approach is best and anything else is inferior" attitude. There are very good arguments an each side of the ledger, but it all comes down to the individual AP's playing style and games selected. By nature, we need to be able to adapt to situations and think on our feet.
Anyone can make a very good argument for putting in the work on a more complex system to squeeze out that extra edge. After all, for the most part we are dealing with razor thin advantages and every bit will help. The flip side is that the more complex system may add less incremental value to someone else's approach and in some cases be less effective.
The question of valuing marginal utility over placing a premium on expected value has been going on in finance for the past fifty years. I see the correlation here to this argument about counting systems. My take on this is that the best count system is whatever works best for you.

[KJ]

I just don't get all of this closed-minded "my approach is best and anything else is inferior" attitude. There are very good arguments an each side of the ledger, but it all comes down to the individual AP's playing style and games selected. By nature, we need to be able to adapt to situations and think on our feet.
Anyone can make a very good argument for putting in the work on a more complex system to squeeze out that extra edge. After all, for the most part we are dealing with razor thin advantages and every bit will help. The flip side is that the more complex system may add less incremental value to someone else's approach and in some cases be less effective.
The question of valuing marginal utility over placing a premium on expected value has been going on in finance for the past fifty years. I see the correlation here to this argument about counting systems. My take on this is that the best count system is whatever works best for you.

That's fine, Fireman. I actually don't disagree with anything you said.

My problem is with proponents of higher counts 'pushing' that idea, mostly on players and members that aren't ready to be considering such a move. I am not specifically speaking of the latest occurrence with the fellow that Flash is mentoring here, but when a newer player/member enters the discussion and immediately asks "what count he should play" or "what is the best count", he/she should not be steered to anything other than hi-lo or something equivalently simple like K-O. I prefer Hi-lo, because it is the industry standard and most references are linked to it, as well as opportunities like team play should one decide to go that route. Basically if a player is asking that question, he/she is not ready to be considering anything but hi-lo or K-O (or equivalent).

My second issue is that once we get into the debate, the proponent guys then throw all this misleading data and numbers at said, newer player/member. 'Cherry-picked' data and 'skewed' numbers and specific situations.

They will pick specific example of how you will benefit from a count that incorporates or side counts 9's, when playing 12 vs 2, 3, or 4.

They will show you a simulation featuring 'cherry-picked' games and conditions that show their position in the most favorable light. That simulation will show you a gain of 10%, 12%, 15%, except it leaves out one very big detail, a higher error rate, where even just a small increase in errors, more that eliminates any perceived gains. They never want to acknowledge a higher error rate. That doesn't exist in their mind, despite indisputable scientific evidence to the contrary that more complex tasks come with higher error rates than simple tasks do. They refuse to accept this major component, usually spouting some sort of flawed and erroneous logic like "with enough practice......"

So my argument isn't really even with these higher count proponents. They can do what they like. Believe what they like. Highlight the advantages and discount the negatives, like a higher error rate and believe whole-heartedly that they are being objective. I could care less if they want to waste time and energy chasing pennies for very minimal gain and ignoring things that really do matter. But I do have a problem with the pushing of this agenda on to players/members that are not ready for it. By the time someone is ready to consider such a move, they don't need to ask such questions. They have the knowledge and understanding to look objectively and decide what is best for themselves.

One last thing to these sim guys: Simulations are a tool. They are never the end all 'answer' to anything. You can basically make or find a sim to say whatever you want it to say. Anyone that doesn't understand that is not getting the most that they can from this 'tool'.

[Three]

My take on this is that the best count system is whatever works best for you

x2

[moo321]

Absolutely not the point of my original post. Let me try again:

Can we all agree that, at a minimum, these are the only counts even worth considering? Tthree, do you agree Hi Opt 2 is the best level 2 ace SC system, all others are inferior, and if someone is going to use a level 2 side-counted system, they should use Hi Opt 2?

KJ do you agree Hi Lo is the best all-around true-counted level 1 system?

Does everyone agree that RPC is the best system for shoe games?

Does everyone agree KO, REKO, and Red 7 are the best "keep it simple" systems?

And finally, does everyone agree Zen and UBZ are the best level 2 hybrid systems?

Very specific questions here, not asking "which is the best all-time count for everyone everywhere?" Only seeking to narrow the list.

[KJ]

Absolutely not the point of my original post. Let me try again:

Can we all agree that, at a minimum, these are the only counts even worth considering? Tthree, do you agree Hi Opt 2 is the best level 2 ace SC system, all others are inferior, and if someone is going to use a level 2 side-counted system, they should use Hi Opt 2?

KJ do you agree Hi Lo is the best all-around true-counted level 1 system?

Does everyone agree that RPC is the best system for shoe games?

Does everyone agree KO, REKO, and Red 7 are the best "keep it simple" systems?

And finally, does everyone agree Zen and UBZ are the best level 2 hybrid systems?

Very specific questions here, not asking "which is the best all-time count for everyone everywhere?" Only seeking to narrow the list.

Yes, Moo, I agree that Hi-lo is the best all-around true counted level 1 system (actually, we can leave out the 'level 1' from that statement ). I know you want me to stop right there, but I must add it also comes with other built in advantages because it is the industry standard.

I don't really feel qualified to comment on any other counts mentioned. The only one I have some experience with is RPC which I played for 18 months earlier in my career. RPC is obviously very good for shoe games. I just don't believe it matters all that much in terms of results (see Munchkin and bigplayer quotes).

There is a strange thing now associated with RPC that I never really understood. It was real popular what 30 (maybe more) years ago, when players like Don and Norm were starting out, evident by them gravitating towards it. But somewhere along the line it somehow fell out of favor and now is often referred to as 'antiquated'. It might have been when Zen came into existence. I don't know.

[Three]

My second issue is that once we get into the debate, the proponent guys then throw all this misleading data and numbers at said, newer player/member. 'Cherry-picked' data and 'skewed' numbers and specific situations.

I think this is funny. I don't have time to cherry pick data. I just run take the results of the canned times that anyone can confirm. I got accused of not having sim results to confirm what I was saying for a long time. Now I just enter the relevant parameters and post the results and get accused of cherry picking all the time. I think the difference is the times I use reduce all gain to EV or at least attempt to do so. They use optimal ramps for each system given fixed RoR, BR, full indices and Spread (meaning 1-10, 1-12 etc). It is modeled after the fair comparison Don invented when he came up with SCORE. Others say you have this much gain in EV but gain is hidden in lower RoR and sub-optimal bets so they can keep the bets the same. That is not a fair comparison. If you quote this is the percent gain in EV you must keep BR, RoR spread and indices constant for both sims. Using full indices is the fairest as what are strong index plays vary by what count you are using. I am sorry if some don't like the results that come from reducing all the gain to EV which has a more powerful system making larger bets because that is the optimal ramp given the same BR, RoR, spread etc. If you ask me saying this is the difference in EV between the 2 counts while hiding gain in the form of lower RoR or requiring one system to use a sub-optimal BR is the very definition of cherry picking.

They will pick specific example of how you will benefit from a count that incorporates or side counts 9's, when playing 12 vs 2, 3, or 4.

Nope the CVCX canned sims don't use any of this.

They will show you a simulation featuring 'cherry-picked' games and conditions that show their position in the most favorable light. That simulation will show you a gain of 10%, 12%, 15%, except it leaves out one very big detail, a higher error rate, where even just a small increase in errors, more that eliminates any perceived gains. They never want to acknowledge a higher error rate. That doesn't exist in their mind, despite indisputable scientific evidence to the contrary that more complex tasks come with higher error rates than simple tasks do. They refuse to accept this major component, usually spouting some sort of flawed and erroneous logic like "with enough practice......"

And science also proves enough reputation will make any task that you can do easy. You just need to put in the necessary prep time. A5 count is easier than Hilo so you must have a huge error rate by comparison. Science has proved it. So why do you think you have a small error rate or no errors at all. If a player doesn't prepare adequately for playing no matter what their count they will have an unacceptable error rate. With the practitioners of the uber counts only used by a rare few even one error is unacceptable. The discipline of this type of person will have no or minimal errors no matter what count they use.

By the time someone is ready to consider such a move, they don't need to ask such questions. They have the knowledge and understanding to look objectively and decide what is best for themselves.

This is pretty accurate for a generalization.

One last thing to these sim guys:

I think it is really funny if KJ classifies me as a sim guy. I was accused for years spanning back to Ken's site that I never supported my position with sims. I didn't because I knew that was meaningless and could be cherry picked. Finally I got tired of being called a math guy that couldn't support my position with sims so I started using the canned sims in the tool bar to avoid any temptation to cherry pick. All of the sudden I am a sim guy after years of posting no sim data. That is just a hoot. It is like people can't defend their position so they either call you a math guy or a sim guy as a pejorative rather than defend their position. You post random sims and get accused of cherry picking. On one of KJ's rants DonS even chimed in to point out he did as I do to have a fair comparison and came up with 15-20% gain in BJA3 depending on the game. Yet KJ sticks to his agenda and quotes small gains that only exist when you artificially hide gain in RoR. Now KJ plays up against an upper boundary due to tolerance so for him that is reality. He can't raise his bets and rather than comparing at a slightly lower level so RoR is kept constant he just has a lot of gain for complexity hidden in lower RoR and says this is the EV gain for going more complex. He also doesn't use full indices in comparisons which opens up another can of worms that can hide, amplify or reduce potential gain.

The best count for someone depends on what game you are attacking, what additional techniques you want to add to the basic count, your abilities to do any given count and what you are comfortable with using. It is a very personal decision not a one size fits all debate.

[moo321]

Actually, in my original post, I pointed out that Hi Lo was also good because teams use it, it's good for tracking (I speak from a lot of experience here), it's conceptually simple and there's a ton of literature available for it.

But yeah, I agree with your assessment of RPC. I'm close to saying it should be the industry standard level 2 count for the modern game. I think it's very clearly the best system for shoes, generally edging out or tying halves with less complexity. And Zen/UBZ don't become competitive, even in pitch, until you're using large amounts of indexes, where their PE catches up.

Zen/UBZ do have some other very significant advantages, (i.e. other games, which they are VERY good at) so I'm not throwing them out.

[mofungoo]

Ford, Chevy, Toyota or Porches will all get you there. On a crowded interstate a Corolla might get there before a Porsche, depending on the drivers. Just because a car is faster on a racetrack doesn't mean it will get you to work on a crowded road any sooner.

And so it goes with count systems. It really doesn't matter which a player uses, as long s/he is proficient in the use of their system.

[KJ]

I think this is funny. I don't have time to cherry pick data. I just run take the results of the canned times that anyone can confirm.

Really?? You think just because you use 'canned' sims or data from someone highly respected like DonS, that it doesn't mean you are not 'cherry picking' data that supposes your claims? Don't make me out to be that much of an idiot. And I am not the only one who thinks you do this.

That looks like without cherry picked sim shows a 13% to 20% gain for HIOPT II over HILO

You just cherry picked because you chose a 5/6 s17 ds ls game comparing the strongest two level count in existence that requires an Ace sidecount to function properly to a one level count all using very tight bet spreads.

[Yopp-Secret 572]

My problem is with proponents of higher counts 'pushing' that idea, mostly on players and members that aren't ready to be considering such a move. I am not specifically speaking of the latest occurrence with the fellow that Flash is mentoring here, but when a newer player/member enters the discussion and immediately asks "what count he should play" or "what is the best count", he/she should not be steered to anything other than hi-lo or something equivalently simple like K-O. I prefer Hi-lo, because it is the industry standard and most references are linked to it, as well as opportunities like team play should one decide to go that route. Basically if a player is asking that question, he/she is not ready to be considering anything but hi-lo or K-O (or equivalent).

My second issue is that once we get into the debate, the proponent guys then throw all this misleading data and numbers at said, newer player/member. 'Cherry-picked' data and 'skewed' numbers and specific situations.

They will pick specific example of how you will benefit from a count that incorporates or side counts 9's, when playing 12 vs 2, 3, or 4.

They will show you a simulation featuring 'cherry-picked' games and conditions that show their position in the most favorable light. That simulation will show you a gain of 10%, 12%, 15%, except it leaves out one very big detail, a higher error rate, where even just a small increase in errors, more that eliminates any perceived gains. They never want to acknowledge a higher error rate. That doesn't exist in their mind, despite indisputable scientific evidence to the contrary that more complex tasks come with higher error rates than simple tasks do. They refuse to accept this major component, usually spouting some sort of flawed and erroneous logic like "with enough practice......"

Hey, Look I'm a LEGEND already!!! kidding
KJ, I like how you put things, you don't seem to be pushing for "my system is the best" you seem to be looking out for people and making sure they understand its not all bells and whistles. I want it to be clear, when told I would be training the Hi Opt 2 w/ ASC I wasn't told its the best, Others are junk, and here's why.... with a bunch of mumbo jumbo to follow supporting.
But when I started I knew nothing, I went in and played with the Red7, it was cool because my wife could do it as well and for about a week we profited. Now, I cant tell you if it were because of the system, or if it were because I was lucky and entered the games I played during this positive flux I hear so much about. We back counted and jumped in at the pivot usually around three decks down and did well. Together we played like a single person spreading to two hands sometimes she would just sit there and not bet and when I wanted her to, I would say things like, "Why are you even here if you're not going to play?" That was her queue to jump in. Sometimes I would say "you don't have to make the same bet I am, you have a mind of you own" and she would bet about $10 less than I was. It made people pay attention to how big of a jerk I was instead of the fact I/we were spreading. Then I started using Hi Lo the same way pretty much. I will admit only using BS except some slight variations. At the time I had no guidance and just wanted to try everything I was learning right now. I did Hi Lo for a few weeks using the I18 mostly adding some more as I learned. But I didn't have them all down pat. sometimes I messed up or forgot. I wont lie.
Now Im telling you this to ask this, while I know the count values themselves are different, when I switched the 7's would cause me to pause every time going from a zero to a +1 I know that's not the only change but it seemed to be the only card that stopped me.
I want to know, what makes the Hi Opt 2 so much more prone for error? Everything seems to be the same in terms of steps the systems use to get to TC and such. Why is HI Opt 2 so much harder?

I don't want to change right now because I haven't had any issues to speak of. Nothing worth quitting over anyway. But I am new and may not be seeing everything.

Also, I have read about some other AP approaches and some interest me. Where can one look for info on different things to learn to get more out of Casinos?

Tthree was incorrect in his statement about that seminar being for casino personnel. It was in fact for AP's to learn different tactics. It covers things like edge sorting, (have no idea what that is) and other table games that one could apply counting theory to, or for side bets and so on. The guy putting it on works both sides of the fence. He says that AP's don't like him because he will figure a way to bet this or that and sell the way to stop it to the casino, But that he will also teach AP's how to beat something and then sit back and watch the battle to see who wins. Not very clear on his morals and ethics, but again, I just want to learn different stuff because this all has become almost an obsession. his name is either Bill Zender or Eliot Jacobson. its not in front of me but they're both involved.

Can you explain to me why you think I would be better off with a simpler system? I know you didn't say that and I don't want to words in your mouth. But I am open to learning. I'm sure once I get out there again and begin to use my knowledge, lights will switch on and more stuff will become clear. But as for now, all I have is what I'm reading. And is there somewhere I can get the indices for my system? I have some, But I want to compare. Is this software a good idea? Or what software should I get?
Thanks
Respectfully
YOPP

[Three]

Really?? You think just because you use 'canned' sims or data from someone highly respected like DonS, that it doesn't mean you are not 'cherry picking' data that supposes your claims? Don't make me out to be that much of an idiot. And I am not the only one who thinks you do this.

Well I make no effort to cherry pick sims so I don't see how I can be cherry picking sims.

Originally Posted by bigplayer
Originally Posted by Tthree
That looks like without cherry picked sim shows a 13% to 20% gain for HIOPT II over HILO
You just cherry picked because you chose a 5/6 s17 ds ls game comparing the strongest two level count in existence that requires an Ace sidecount to function properly to a one level count all using very tight bet spreads.

Actually that was a great game and a crappy game to get the range and the crappy game had the higher increase in advantage (20%). The great game would be hard to find but is out there.

[21forme]

Don't make me out to be that much of an idiot.

KJ, what makes you an idiot is the fact you're still participating in a "best count" thread