Some simple questions about counting...

[Three]

Let's not turn this into a 'what count is best debate' or 'this software is recommended' thread.

Hi-Lo is probably the best of the balanced counts, because it is easiest,

I love when you say let's not get into a what is best debate in one breath and then start opinions on what is best in the next. It is funny as hell. LoL

[Boz]

I love when you say let's not get into a what is best debate in one breath and then start opinions on what is best in the next. It is funny as hell. LoL

I knew someone would say that. At least no one disliked it yet.

I only brought up counts specifically mentioned by the OP and described them in terms of ease. Wong Halves was mentioned in the thread for Christmas' sake.

I certainly don't think Hi-Lo is the best count. But you can slide on that quote since I'm the king of taking things out of context.

[Villiam]

I was only trying to explain and give context so that the poster would have a better idea what counting is and what words mean, etc... As someone who started out with Ken Smith's counting school I found it very explanatory without overdoing it in terms of complexity. From there you can move on to bigger and better... I agree, useless to derail the thread with better-thans, but impt to give the guy something to work with... And it's better to learn one count well than to get all spread out without reference to what you're doing like he's seemingly on his way towards...

[MJGolf]

Let's not turn this into a 'what count is best debate' or 'this software is recommended' thread.

CVData is what he needs to generate indices, which is what the OP asked. Hi-Lo is probably the best of the balanced counts, because it is easiest, for someone so green he doesn't know what dividing by a half-deck means...and all the information about it is free on the Internet. FELT is a better choice than RPC for the same reason, in addition to RPC requiring better deck estimation skills and having weaker resolution in a shoe. Hi-Lo is easier than FELT because it is a level-1 count with lower (more manageable) index numbers.

Personally I don't see anything to dispute in this statement. It's not a "which count is better" thread; it's a which count works for this level player suggestion.

Munchkin for example states simplicity reigns over a complicated count you can't maintain accurately. I think that honestly it all depends upon where you are in this world of AP play. Some are willing to work towards every nuance; every small mathematical edge. Some just want to play; make some money. And in the long run, isn't that what all of us are interested in? I think there are many, many ways to 'skin this cat'....................though it is getting harder and harder to do so.

Honestly, I may not always be able to elicit the utmost advantage from every game. But I have enough knowledge to get a positive expectation in most of the games available here. So sometimes isn't it better to just "play" v. arguing on this board as to whether or not the maximum amount of profit was squeezed from every game available?

T-Three for example might be able to milk every cent of positive expectation from our games here. BUT that doesn't mean that I can't play a less complicated count and STILL make a profit, right? Yes, I aspire to winning more and learning more...............but if you are playing a positive game, isn't it worth playing it while trying to reach that "higher level" of competence?

[Three]

I agree MJ, which is why I only pointed out the humor in it rather than engage in yet another pointless which count is best debate. The best count differs by each person and situation. That is all that needs to be said.