About ace side count

[fresh ice cream]

I found that I can't count the card very accurately when I add the side count.As a result, I use English letter to assign Ace.For example, when first Ace comes out, I assign the first Ace as A, second Ace as B,etc...It works better for me because I will not mess up with my main count.This was wit I found.Anyone has better idea or own way?welcome to discuss.


??? iPhone ????? Tapatalk

[lij45o6]

There are some who use Alphabet characters to designate the side count. There are some who use Integers to keep said side count as well, usually by keeping each count "far and separated" in their mind's eye.

If you prefer one over the other, then it is no big deal.

As long as you can side count *correctly* and without pause/issue when used in conjunction with the main point count, then you should not have any issues.

[fresh ice cream]

There are some who use Alphabet characters to designate the side count. There are some who use Integers to keep said side count as well, usually by keeping each count "far and separated" in their mind's eye.

If you prefer one over the other, then it is no big deal.

As long as you can side count *correctly* and without pause/issue when used in conjunction with the main point count, then you should not have any issues.

Yeah,it still needs practice and be comfortable with it


??? iPhone ????? Tapatalk

[Meistro123]

pro tip : if you get to i u have gone too far

[Freightman]

pro tip : if you get to i u have gone too far

Side counting aces becomes a non issue well before "u"

[Bigdaddy]

I tried many methods of side counting aces and finally decided that a,b,c.... worked the best for me. I only use an ace side count for DD games (HO2), so as Meistro notes above, if you get to i, you have gone to far. Side counting aces in a 6 or 8 deck game isn't worth the additional effort. Suggest that you use an ace-reckoned count for a shoe game.

[fresh ice cream]

I tried many methods of side counting aces and finally decided that a,b,c.... worked the best for me. I only use an ace side count for DD games (HO2), so as Meistro notes above, if you get to i, you have gone to far. Side counting aces in a 6 or 8 deck game isn't worth the additional effort. Suggest that you use an ace-reckoned count for a shoe game.

Thx for advice, Bigdaddy.I use Advanced Omega II which is very similar to Zen Count but the only difference is that Omega just doesn't count for Ace. Will it be more accurate using Ace side count with main count than Ace-reckoned count?


??? iPhone ????? Tapatalk

[Bigdaddy]

Thx for advice, Bigdaddy.I use Advanced Omega II which is very similar to Zen Count but the only difference is that Omega just doesn't count for Ace. Will it be more accurate using Ace side count with main count than Ace-reckoned count?

Yes - AO2 w/ ASC is one of the most powerful counts you can use. It is more powerful than Zen. But AO2 w/o the ASC, is not as powerful as Zen. My personal opinion is that side counting aces in a 6 or 8 deck game is nuts, so Zen would be my choice for that.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

NOTE: Failure to Side-Count Aces is a hallmark of a weak Card Counting System.

[seriousplayer]

NOTE: Failure to Side-Count Aces is a hallmark of a weak Card Counting System.

With just Side Counting Aces does not make the card counting system the most accurate. As I have been doing a large amount of research on card counting the past several months. To make a card counting system more accurate you need to add more parameters to it. For example, maintaining a secondary count along with the card counting system. Combining the two together or even better adding three parameters and combining those three together for betting and playing. Doing that even with an unbalanced card counting system you can outperform HI-OPT II with Ace Side count in SCORE. Both in Single, Double and 6-8 deck games.

If you are capable of maintaining a secondary count do so.

[Stealth]

I have no interest in engaging in a my count is better than yours discussion as they have been beaten to death. I concur with the myriad of test/sim results that identify what is mathematically optimum. The point I would make is that there is a difference between mathematically optimum and effective. In my intuitive opinion, if I take all the AP counters I know and graph their "effectiveness" on a bell shaped curve, the multi-level highly optimum folks would be on the far right, the wannabes would be on the far left and the hi/lo / KO folks would be in the center. If you find AP play to be an avocation then you belong in the middle (or you are an exception), if you find AP play to be your vocation then you should be on the far right.

Even accomplished athletes dedicate large amounts of time to practice to be able to perform their craft. Their are no professional golfers who don't hit thousands of balls to insure they are sharp. Being on the right side of my bell shaped curve demands a frequency of practice and perfection to be successful or they will be devoured by the brain damage required and the increased cost of errors for the multitude of reasons.

I see folks trying to perform at the professional level without the environment (practice and frequency of play) to warrant their choice. Vanity (I am a very smart person and can do anything!) and ignorance (I do not understand the ramifications of my decision) contribute to their bad choice. The results are higher error rates and less success.

Those of us who have occasion to encourage a new player in their quest should provide a more measured step wise progression for their learning that includes the recognition of the threshold requirements of moving to the optimum. Learning simple before tackling complex is not a bad thing. It is what is best for you, not just what is the best.

As always, consenting opinions are welcome...............

[fresh ice cream]

I have no interest in engaging in a my count is better than yours discussion as they have been beaten to death. I concur with the myriad of test/sim results that identify what is mathematically optimum. The point I would make is that there is a difference between mathematically optimum and effective. In my intuitive opinion, if I take all the AP counters I know and graph their "effectiveness" on a bell shaped curve, the multi-level highly optimum folks would be on the far right, the wannabes would be on the far left and the hi/lo / KO folks would be in the center. If you find AP play to be an avocation then you belong in the middle (or you are an exception), if you find AP play to be your vocation then you should be on the far right.

Even accomplished athletes dedicate large amounts of time to practice to be able to perform their craft. Their are no professional golfers who don't hit thousands of balls to insure they are sharp. Being on the right side of my bell shaped curve demands a frequency of practice and perfection to be successful or they will be devoured by the brain damage required and the increased cost of errors for the multitude of reasons.

I see folks trying to perform at the professional level without the environment (practice and frequency of play) to warrant their choice. Vanity (I am a very smart person and can do anything!) and ignorance (I do not understand the ramifications of my decision) contribute to their bad choice. The results are higher error rates and less success.

Those of us who have occasion to encourage a new player in their quest should provide a more measured step wise progression for their learning that includes the recognition of the threshold requirements of moving to the optimum. Learning simple before tackling complex is not a bad thing. It is what is best for you, not just what is the best.

As always, consenting opinions are welcome...............

I agree with you.need tons of time to practice for being professional.I realized that I still have a lot of things to learn.thx for advice


??? iPhone ????? Tapatalk

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Frank,

This is hilarious.

Doin' 'rithmetic.