Narrowing the "Which Count?" Debate

[Norm]

Don uses them all. I started dropping (forgetting) the ones that didn't come up often and used compromises for soft-doubles.

[Norm]

What a new player does and an old player does are different subjects. If you already know a count and indices, why would you stop using them?

[Three]

Considering, you both probably have a combined 100 years in blackjack experience, it appears taking on more than what you suggest is tantamount to packing items that never come out of the suitcase.

I think its closer to if it is packed I am sure going to use it. You packed a long time ago and you never unpack.

[Tarzan]

What is this about 16vs4? I don't recall ever bringing up this hand for any reason, just not on my listing of cool things to think about. I do actually have a chart for that hand and there are deck compositions that you'd hit it but they are so negative that it's meaningless.

I have taken the very complex and simplified it into what can be used in practical application. When I explain it I often feel like I'm trying to explain the appearance of a flower to a blind person, especially after reading some of the comments on the forum. You come up with a TC that is less accurate than mine and from there base your betting and playing decision on that one number. For me the TC is strictly for betting purposes with the index number for a hand being a single point of reference on a solid, continuous line that runs through a sea of all possible deck compositions.

"Silly? Silly? O my goodness. Column counting is nothing more than Tarzan count without reducing the lowest column to zero. Sure, you can leave the 6 with the middle grouping and the 2 with low group. Slightly reduces BC."

The method used for determining TC is unlike anything ever done before and is incredibly accurate. Long ago this was discussed in a thread talking about TC being inconsistent with actual advantage to varying degrees, dependent upon what count you were using. You are referring to something that was pointed out about Gordon on reduced BC. To make most counts go way off the mark, all you need to do is have surplus or deficit {6-9}, surplus or deficit (A). I don't have this issue because I factor these values in when determining TC. I don't think it gets any more accurate than what I do unless you are allowed to bring your computer to the table with you.

"Even then, he is still deck estimating. Still, I wonder why Tarzan would be concerned with a count negative enough to know when to hit 16 vs 4. It seems to me riding off into the sunset would be the more prudent option in a 6 deck game."

I'm wondering about why I'd be so concerned about when to hit 16vs4 also. I'm even more concerned about you imagining that I have concerns about this hand.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

moses,

"Tarzan … My point was in a game where wonging out is an option, it would seem there would be a division line to just walk away vs. continue to play. Thus charting beyond that point is futile."

So, let me see if I have this straight, moses.
You play only Single Deck and if the first hand
is a 20-20 push, you stand up ? W.T.F. ?

[Three]

FYI, wonging out in not an option in single deck...I thought you knew that.

Wasn't that Flash's point? Guess it went over your head. If you play ace neutral counts the playing count may be quite negative when you have a betting advantage. You can either play extremely wrong in these situations with your ramped bets out and an ace reckoned count or you can them strong with your ace neutral count. Neither player has wronged out at this point but only the ace neutral player understands that an accurate playing count is quite neutral. The ace reckoned counter doesn't understand a huge surplus of aces rather than T's why he is ramping his bets. His plays reflect this lack of additional info as he plays like there is a lot of T's coming when in fact it is aces and low cards that are expected.

Moses, try studying one of Tarzans charts he puts up. A decision is divided into 3 main groups depending on which group has been reduced to 0 (this group is in surplus). Then each block increments the 2 other groups as horizontal and vertical in the chart. You can easily see the shift in the decision as the different card groups fluctuate. You get three dimensions represented as three 2 dimensional charts. After study you will see just how you end up with a ramped bet out there and a negative playing count. Think surplus aces. As an ace neutral count player I can tell you it happens a lot more than you think. You seem to think it never happens despite the fact that you side count aces. But yes if you sacrifice PE for a simpler way to get high BC you will be there when the playing count is negative but you use a weak playing count that doesn't understand a strong PE count would have negative TC for playing decisions even though you have an advantage. Basically the ace reckoned have decided to give up accurate play when aces are not at expected depletion so they don't need to spend a split second more getting the bet figured out. If they want to make the trade off that is fine but don't act like they aren't there when you the playing count is negative. They just don't understand the playing count is negative because their playing count is poorly correlated to being an accurate playing count comparatively speaking.

[mofungoo]

Wasn't that Flash's point? Guess it went over your head. If you play ace neutral counts the playing count may be quite negative when you have a betting advantage. You can either play extremely wrong in these situations with your ramped bets out and an ace reckoned count or you can them strong with your ace neutral count. Neither player has wronged out at this point but only the ace neutral player understands that an accurate playing count is quite neutral. The ace reckoned counter doesn't understand a huge surplus of aces rather than T's why he is ramping his bets. His plays reflect this lack of additional info as he plays like there is a lot of T's coming when in fact it is aces and low cards that are expected.

Moses, try studying one of Tarzans charts he puts up. A decision is divided into 3 main groups depending on which group has been reduced to 0 (this group is in surplus). Then each block increments the 2 other groups as horizontal and vertical in the chart. You can easily see the shift in the decision as the different card groups fluctuate. You get three dimensions represented as three 2 dimensional charts. After study you will see just how you end up with a ramped bet out there and a negative playing count. Think surplus aces. As an ace neutral count player I can tell you it happens a lot more than you think. You seem to think it never happens despite the fact that you side count aces. But yes if you sacrifice PE for a simpler way to get high BC you will be there when the playing count is negative but you use a weak playing count that doesn't understand a strong PE count would have negative TC for playing decisions even though you have an advantage. Basically the ace reckoned have decided to give up accurate play when aces are not at expected depletion so they don't need to spend a split second more getting the bet figured out. If they want to make the trade off that is fine but don't act like they aren't there when you the playing count is negative. They just don't understand the playing count is negative because their playing count is poorly correlated to being an accurate playing count comparatively speaking.

English translation: An ace-neutral count with an ASC will have a higher SCORE than an ace-reckoned count, all else being equal.

[moo321]

Muckz, what deck resolution were you using in your comparison of HiLo and KO? It affects the comparison a lot.

[Tarzan]

Okay. Allow me to simplify for those of us riding the short bus. Tarzan...is there a point where you Wong out? OR does your system just ride the mechanical bull of variance through hell and high water?

Of course I wong out. If you hit a point of no return for the count to swing back around it's time to get up unless there is some reason to stay on the table, deep pen, tracking clumps of (A), HC, etc., in which case you are hanging in there betting minimums until the next shuffle. Avoid playing in negative counts if you can but if you are in a situation that means riding out a negative count doesn't it make sense to know exactly how to play these hands or should the mentality be "Oh heck with it, it's a negative count, a losing proposition, so why should I bother with perfect play and why not lose more since I'm playing a losing game already?" I'm surprised you bring this up as a relevant topic since you play SD exclusively. It's as Flash said about if you get a 20vs20 push on the first hand do you get up and walk away? Playing SD you are essentially in a play all scenario, having to ride out negative counts. Things change in a hurry with SD, DD, nothing like the gradual crescendo of a 6D game, making you the last guy that needs to be thinking about ignoring the index play for 9vs6, 10vs7, etc.

[Three]

This information would go a long way towards ending the extreme differences of opinions to the left and the right.

I would take that wager. All this has been hashed and rehashed to death. Moo's approach was a great one because the right count depends on you and the games you play. Nothing ever gets settled but moo was trying to take the personal preferences out of the debate by using categories. Deciding what is best in different categories kind of takes the what count fits you best out of the debate since that will most likely be one of the categories.

[muckz]

Muckz, what deck resolution were you using in your comparison of HiLo and KO? It affects the comparison a lot.

I have my cvdata,x set at half deck resolutions full deck divisors. As far as I know cv doesn't support any other resolutions but full deck for TKO and running KO doesn't have any =). There shouldnt be a huge difference between half and full resolution if indices were generated opposite. May be a big difference when mixing exact or 1/4 with full deck. Just to check I re did everything as full deck divisor/resolution and the results were the same. PM me if you have more questions since this thread turned into a bunch of old asses arguing about nothing.