Level 2 count system

[seriousplayer]

Questions for all card counter that uses a level 2 card counting system. When I play six or eight deck shoe game I usually use the techniques present in Blackjack Attack and Blackbelt in Blackjack like top hopping to increase win rate. Using wongin and wongout, dropping out in negative shoes. Using Mr perfect sometimes.

I know that without adding additional side counts to a level 1 count system it will not be as strong as level 2 count. I am not saying level 1 counts are weak.

What I want to know is for card counters that uses a level 2 count do you still play techniques like wongin and wongout, drop out of negative shoes and backcountry,etc. Or do you just play all in a six or eight deck game?
I might not be comparing apples to apples but it seem like wongin and wongout have a high Score than using a level 2 count doing the play all approach.

How does switching to level 2 count improve my game in Blackjack?

[Three]

What I want to know is for card counters that uses a level 2 count do you still play techniques like wongin and wongout, drop out of negative shoes and backcountry,etc. Or do you just play all in a six or eight deck game?

Of course you do.

How does switching to level 2 count improve my game in Blackjack?

Generally speaking you will make more, have a higher degree of certainty. You will be able to use a more tolerated spread and make the same or more money. You will lower your exposure because you will play less by hitting your win tolerance goal quicker and with more certainty. You will increase the likelihood of surrounding losing sessions with winning ones so losing streaks will tend to be less frequent, less severe and of shorter durations. You will still get your ass handed to you from time to time.

[seriousplayer]

Of course you do.

Generally speaking you will make more, have a higher degree of certainty. You will be able to use a more tolerated spread and make the same or more money. You will lower your exposure because you will play less by hitting your win tolerance goal quicker and with more certainty. You will increase the likelihood of surrounding losing sessions with winning ones so losing streaks will tend to be less frequent, less severe and of shorter durations. You will still get your ass handed to you from time to time.

Why do you need to wongin and wongout if level 2 count is so strong?

[Three]

Why do you need to wongin and wongout if level 2 count is so strong?

It is just better to. You don't need to do it as much but not doing it at all is unwise.

[DSchles]

As you see from the SCORE studies, level-2 counts are a little stronger than level 1, but not greatly so. You will have horrible losing streaks in BJ no matter what count you use. You can't avoid standard deviation by playing higher-level counts. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

You wong in and out of games because playing that way is much more profitable than playing all. All the numbers are there for you to compare in the BJA3 tables. Just look at them. If you do, you will see that, compared to play-all level-1 counts, back-counting, using those same counts, will gain you infinitely more than play-all, simply moving to a level-2 count.

Don

[DSchles]

"Don S my 7th grade dropouts are confused. Are you saying a level 2 count employed with ill 18 is better than a level 1 even though all indices are employed and backcounting?"

Where on earth did I say anything remotely like that? Please reread a bit more carefully what I wrote. I wrote that the difference in gain between back-counting and playing all, for a level 1 system, is much greater than the difference in gain between playing all with a level 2 vs. playing all with a level 1 (or, for that matter, back-counting a level 2 compared to back-counting a level 1). Not even close.

In short, for any SAME system, the decision to back-count, rather than play-all, is infinitely more important than moving from a level-1 system to a level-2 system and playing those systems the same way.

Don

[DSchles]

"But then, as God as [is] my witness, I don't experience these horrible unavoidable losing streaks either."

Makes no sense. No one's edge at this game is great enough such that size and frequency of losing streaks shouldn't be almost the same as those of winning streaks. Unless you're the type of player who lets winning sessions ride, but bails out of losing ones when he hits a "stop loss," your comments above make little sense to me.

Don

[Norm]

Would you say a level 2 count employed with ill 18 is better than a level 1 even though all indices are employed?

Depends on rules, decks, penetration, spread, what you mean by "all" indices, and which level 2 system you are talking about. HiLo with 143 indices will outperform RPC with 22 indices in more situations than not. IMO, RPC with 22 indices is far easier than HiLo with 143 indices for most folk.

[Bigdaddy]

My level 3 system won hands down over any other ace reckoned count in all categories SCORE, n0, etc.

If you had to play the horrendous cards I got yesterday with your level 3 system, you would have gotten slaughtered, just like me. Maybe your beating would have been 10 - 15% less, but it would still have been devastating ...

[stopgambling]

back-counting, using those same counts, will gain you infinitely more than play-all, simply moving to a level-2 count.

that pretty much sums it up for me . Unless i have a very good reason . The simple wong in/out and game/pen selection make much more difference than the difference between level1 vs level 2/3.

[Freightman]

Totally agree with this. The difference which doesn't necessarily show up in the stats is the frequency, severity and length of likely losing runs in general. It is easy to understand why. You have a higher EV and while the standard deviation may not be much different. Say you play 30 hours a trip. Run your EV for each and find out the SD at 30 hours for each system. Then lay out the EV at each SD for each count. If it isn't illustrative enough do 1/2 SD increments. You will see a higher frequency of wins which are higher EV's using the stronger count (as well as a lower frequency go smaller loses). It may help to do whatever the SD is where each count breaks even. Then you will see the skew in frequency of wins and losses and their severity. It will be obvious to you why one count has a wilder ride than the other. It is a matter of the increased likelihood of posting a win both before and after a loss and that the win is more likely to be larger while the loss is more likely to be lower. It is pretty basic common sense once you see the difference illustrated in this way.

Of course all generalizations are not great to use on specifics so check it out for the counts you are considering. If you want swings that are more friendly make sure there is a more significant difference in the amount won or lost and their frequency of occurrence. That is what will make things less painful overall. The stats you already have will tell you the EV's and variance. This illustration gives you a flavor for what is likely to happen as 30 hour results stack up in the short run and over time. It is much like Don's SCORE only much more visual. The relationship between EV and SD is explored in a monetary sense for each each segment of a set portion of SD out from the EV with this illustration. It gives you the frequency of likely results by EV. I love this visual as it makes the change in ride so obvious, at least to me. Don's SCORE is (EV/SD)^2 or EV^2/Var. This visual allows you to see what is happening to produce a better SCORE as it is all about the relationship between EV and SD.


I totally agree with this as well. Of course if you use the same approach to a level 1 and level 2 the latter should prove more effective.

So, to paraphrase - you agree with Don.

[Ryemo]

So, to paraphrase - you agree with Don.

Lol

[Norm]

So, to paraphrase - you agree with Don.

Yes, clicking on "Did you find this post useful" on Don's post would have been even more economical.