Explanation of Moses Column Counting (please)

[Frank Galvin]

Moses,

Rather than hijacking an existing thread, I started this thread, hoping that you would be able to walk people through your columnar counting method (with percentages), with simple english terms.

Obviously your methodology is dramatically different from traditional linear counting systems (not to mention the nontradional approaches developed by T3 and Tarzan). I just believe it would be helpful to have a specific thread available to highlight your methods and approach to counting, deviations and bet spreading. I suspect most forum members cannot follow your use of percentages, in other threads, as they have no narrative explanation to follow.

If you will, great, if not, your call.

I would appreciate it if others will not hijack this thread, or simply rejects its relevance or value. I am simply seeking to engage in an intelligent exchange of information for educational purposes.

The ball is in moses' court.

[Norm]

Please keep all such posts in this thread and do not mention such counts in any other thread. For those not interrsted, there is an ignore thread function.

Ignore Functions

[refinery]

Please keep all such posts in this thread and do not mention such counts in any other thread. For those not interrsted, there is an ignore thread function.

Ignore Functions

Thanks .

[Freightman]

Told u it was simple
I'll throw in my .02 later. BBQ with kids and grandkids - dinner on the deck takes precedence.

[Freightman]

Interesting shit. At the end of the day, you are playing a standard count, ace neutral system. The big difference, and the reason you limit this game to SD and DD, is that your game is heavily dependent on virtually exact deck estimation, converting what is normally referred to as true count to percentages, calculating those percentages for all cards, sidecounting aces. Your bets may vary wildly by the addition, or deletion of a single ace. The calculations and permutations become far to intense for any deck count exceeding 2.

If I interpet correctly, you will virtually never reach your max bet strike point with a surplus of 2's, 6's, '7's, as it will almost certainly keep you away from your 60% ratio to execute, in standard terms, max bet deviations such as 10 on 10 doubles, splitting 10's which you don't do, and other max bet deviations.

How close am I?

[Three]

max bet deviations such as 10 on 10 doubles, splitting 10's which you don't do, and other max bet deviations.

Doubling 10vT is extremely dependent on ace surplus while splitting TT is based more on bust rate as aces are not as strong a card compared to a T in that scenario.

[Freightman]

Doubling 10vT is extremely dependent on ace surplus while splitting TT is based more on bust rate as aces are not as strong a card compared to a T in that scenario.

I obviously know that. Diff situations. What's your point. Don't cherry pick.

[ZeeBabar]

Freighter. You lost me a little on your 2nd paragraph. About 5% comes for 60% bet distribution. An additional 3% comes from the column that fit minimum qoutas but are below 60%. I get a few more hands out of the power of 12 with 1 Ace remaining.

I wonder what percentage of subscribers on this forum understand all this.

[Freightman]

I wonder what percentage of subscribers on this forum understand all this.

Zee
Read it a few times, take dome notes and give it some thought. It's actually quite logical, though almost impossible to execute. Think about his 60% ratio as being akin to your +4 bet, except his is far more defined.

Where it gets tricky, and for that matter, more precise, is his tracking of intermediate cards, the surplus or deficit of which may well alter what might be your max bet - and on and on it goes.

Also keep in mind, that his approach is for SD and DD games. Anything more, and the potential permutations and calculations would probably make his head explode.

You've stated your position many times. Just give more thought to your own count and go your best to improve your skill set along those lines.

[Frank Galvin]

Why the insult Frank? Since when is answering Bosox legit questions, hijacking a thread? I gave the formula early in thread for even money. Don followed Griffins analogy and made it easy for anyone to implement.

No insults intended (nor made best I recall, or can see from re-reading my post). Glad to see you made subsequent post to begin the discussion.

[BoSox]

Conventional counts have an achilles heel and strives for perfection.

Yes most conventional counts are far from perfect. All they are designed to do is to obtain an edge, for the player who can use the system correctly. Many systems are weak in some areas so in a sense they have as you say an Achilles heel. In reality it all comes back to the individual playing the system, and all of the too numerous variables that the game encompasses that does in fact often change results in the long run.

I want the best deck composition for investing and decision making and then work my back to casino tolerance. Yes, simplicity is always welcomed but cannot serve as an excuse for my game.

Moses you have very high standards which you demand of yourself, "please do not be offended" but what good is all of that knowledge if you possibly have your own Achilles heel, sports book betting? Did you not in fact say that you are down 10 K this month? What is your primary gaming venture, considering the limitations of betting heavy money on single deck blackjack? Isn't it the same thing as a successful poker player taking a large win and then betting heavy at a craps game, or at a blackjack game where his knowledge is likely sub par?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

My sole problem with Mose's explanation is that he seems to have pulled a lot of numbers out of his ...
Without mathematical justification, I cannot accept any of this. For all that I know, these percentages
are too high, too low, or a mix of both, but may be very much sub-optimal. I do not want to mention
the Tarzan Count, so I'll not digress; but that count provides every possible hand matchup, backed up
by a thorough exploration of all possible outcomes with net results.

[BoSox]

Moses, Joe Madden was never the manager of the Red Sox, and there was no such game played.