Don't always believe everything you hear or read

[Tarzan]

When trying to define something and get answers, it's always good to cross reference from multiple independent resources to compare numbers, check your math, etc. On occasion you can encounter differences not only between your math or calculations and a known text but differences between multiple reputable blackjack publications when you look close and compare, although they will normally be very close, very similar. If you are attentive to these slight differences when something pops up that is clearly and blatantly false it's easier to recognize. This is the beauty of a forum, the exchange of ideas and information and the sharing of resources to verify that information, weeding out misinformation and errors.

Sometimes it goes beyond a difference of .0014 here compared to .0016 over there and it's much easier to see a potential discrepancy without even breaking out the pocket calculator. I was on the WOV site, which is not a blackjack site but there is a blackjack section should you ever want to understand the perks and nuances of the A/5 count or other similar exciting topics. There was an excellent post about some blackjack basics aside from one of those potential discrepancies where they mentioned a 10 fold gain in using a level 1 count such as Hi-Lo over more complicated methods due to errors or miscalculations or whatever. Rather than hurriedly run back here to tell those HiOpt2 guys to hurry up and switch to Hi-Lo before it's too late, I mentioned that although it was an otherwise great post this was clearly not an accurate statement, which didn't get a very warm reception. I got a rebuttal that not only seemed to side with this being an accurate statement but also seemed clearly upset that I questioned it!

An individual can say anything they like, especially online but unless they can mathematically prove something out or have evidence to back it up, saying it 1000 more times will not alter the raw data. The same individual saying it 2000 more times beyond that will not erase or disprove existing mathematical proof to the contrary either. Question what you see and read, look at all the resources available along with considering the reputability of the resource. If someone tells me it's a brilliant idea to get a time share in Pago Pago, American Samoa I'm going to check it out from multiple angles from multiple resources. If someone gets irritated that you question something, veering away from the question, this only makes it more questionable. Consider validity so you don't end up with a time share in Pago Pago, American Samoa that ends up becoming the bane of your existence.
313085_289342967759230_782784936_n.jpg

[Norm]

I’ve always warned about errors when using more complex counts. But, this shouldn’t be exaggerated. Fact is, most decisions we make are blindingly obvious. Two tens is the most common hand. Probably not going to hit them just because you’re using a level-II count. Probably not going to stand with that seven. Fact is, there is a limit on how many errors a halfway decent player can make.

On counting errors, I find that if I haven’t played for a very long stretch, and I count down a deck as fast as I can flip the cards, I’ll make errors – for about 20 minutes. Then, it becomes automatic again.

There is the exhaustion factor. More complex counts can be more tiring. But, that depends on the individual. Our minds operate quite differently. In my case, I find counting at level-II no problem – but I hate piles of indices. With some people, the opposite is true.

A lot is made of the fact that the MIT teams used HiLo. Yeah, but with a large number of indices, including some fractional indices. Having said that, I tend to suggest HiLo or KO when asked by someone just starting. But, not always. I really don’t like these one size fits all arguments.

[Jabberwocky]

You neglected to mention that the MITers sought/targeted the s17, LS games. Not a small issue. Those games have become less prevalent together with hand shuffles that afforded opportunities for shuffletrucking. Hence the need if not desire for more sophisticated, advanced and robust systems. Correct me if I have it wrong.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

The M.I.T. Team used fractional True Counts, as well as fractional Indices.

As their "effective" spread with call-in 'Big Players' was enormous, an accurate

count was a moot point -- all that they had to do was signal whenever a strong

True Count occurred.

For what is really the same reasons, many A.P.'s who focus on Shuffle Tracking,

Ace Steering, etc. need to use the "K.I.S.S. Principle", ergo ... Hi-Lo.

[BigJer]

Tarzan, I loved this part:

If someone gets irritated that you question something, veering away from the question, this only makes it more questionable.

Though there is a difference between saying things with vigor, some people think if they get mad then they've won the argument. Pathetic.

[ZeeBabar]

To me, Tarzan, Tthree, a few others are like professional players like a Kobe Bryant or LeBron James. I will not delude myself into thinking that I can be as successful using the same exercises and practice routines. Moreover, I don't think I have the self discipline and commitment to do that routine which might come easily to the top players. However, there are some 300+ professional players in minor leagues who make a decent living without putting in the hours, having the self discipline to get to as high a level.

Thus, my point is that for those satisfied with the earnings of say $50k a year, the extra demands of playing a more complex count, learning more indexes, reading every resource is silly.

Another analogy might be that my golf game is not going to become that of a pro simply because I purchase the same expensive clubs used by Tiger Woods. I stay with HiLo.

however, given the number of times I seem to have doubled an 11 and received an Ace, perhaps I should consider counting Aces. Wonder what Don thinks of that idea?

[DSchles]

"Wonder what Don thinks of that idea?"

As you play mostly shoe games, if I'm not mistaken, I'd say forget about it.

Don

[Freightman]

To me, Tarzan, Tthree, a few others are like professional players like a Kobe Bryant or LeBron James. I will not delude myself into thinking that I can be as successful using the same exercises and practice routines. Moreover, I don't think I have the self discipline and commitment to do that routine which might come easily to the top players. However, there are some 300+ professional players in minor leagues who make a decent living without putting in the hours, having the self discipline to get to as high a level.

Thus, my point is that for those satisfied with the earnings of say $50k a year, the extra demands of playing a more complex count, learning more indexes, reading every resource is silly.

Another analogy might be that my golf game is not going to become that of a pro simply because I purchase the same expensive clubs used by Tiger Woods. I stay with HiLo.

however, given the number of times I seem to have doubled an 11 and received an Ace, perhaps I should consider counting Aces. Wonder what Don thinks of that idea?

If you believe a person should be the best that he/she can be, then the study practice etc., should be a given. If you believe a person should maintain the status quo - in other words, take the path of least resistance, then stay where you are.

Decisions of this sort need to be balanced against aspirations, goals, and amount of playtime. There really is no broad right or wrong answer. The right answer us what's best for the individual.

[stopgambling]

I play aggressively and I am still not to happy with Hi Lo . If i have to stop playing for 3 months to get decent with a better count then i say forget about it. I will rather spend the time to look for better opportunities . Only if it serves a better purpose will i learn a more complex count. One example would be i can not play as aggressive , another example is the complex count serves 2 different games.

[ZeeBabar]

"Wonder what Don thinks of that idea?"

As you play mostly shoe games, if I'm not mistaken, I'd say forget about it.

Don

Actually, I play 70% DD game (dealt off a shoe) and 30% 6 deck games. In my learning curve, I still have difficulty with the 6 deck games as the variance seems to be higher. I can lose a lot of money if variance is not with me and bet after bet goes the dealers way in a positive count. I have recently increased 6 deck play because the only DD table in my local casino can get 4+ folks, has bad rules of H17, no DAS, double 9-11 only. I play the DD with a couple of dealers who give 75% penn. The 6 deck game is cut off at 1.2-1.5 decks. Lately, I started trying to keep an Ace count while playing DD only for the 11 doubles against a 10.

[DSchles]

If you keep a side count of aces at DD, the primary reason, and the biggest gain, would come from a more accurate insurance decision.

Don

[BoSox]

I play aggressively and I am still not to happy with Hi Lo .

Stopgambling, just what expectations were you hoping to achieve, and what is the sample size of the amount time/hands, you have played using HiLow? What kind of games and rules are you playing? Do you play all or do any wonging, and what is your knowledge of index play? You say you play aggressively, does this mean you use a big spread? If you do and are allowed to get away with it, apparently you are playing within a certain tolerance level that they are not currently sweating, which is a good thing, and very high up in the decision of selecting what games to play, right up there with table rules. Learn extreme discipline about changing conditions in a casinos from time of day based on crowds, walk away when it is crowded. Leave if the table stakes have gone up to levels higher than you are accustomed to playing. Accept a loss for the day and give them their TEMPORARY victory. Do not make any good day memorable, by rubbing it in their faces.

[stopgambling]

As a note to Bosox,you assumption is quite accurate. I often compare my ramp with other level 2-3 players . I am not as accurate as them but i play aggressively to capture any loss from a simpler system plus more. My aggressiveness are any moves that would increase my advantage or lower my risk, sometimes on a bigger scale. Playing less than 500 hours /year with marginal /standard games is still gambling for me , so I look for " more ", hopefully much more.