Need some indices for betting and playing.
Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk
It's not weaker but HO2 is most powerful and Zen 2 next but we can't compare UBZ2 with Zen because Zen is mostly effective pitch games and UBZ2 is better in Shoe and online Blacjack games. The way UBZ2 is helpful for me in Shoe games is really impressive. Unfortunately there are no sources or books which can help me with this count.
Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk
In general, threads such as these become relatively meaningless.
I say this in the context some argue that "Method A" is better than "Method B".....but fail to provide conditions under which a given method will be used.
We have counting methods that are optimized for shoe games, and counting methods that are optimized for DD games. Some counting methods are "okay" in certain circumstances, but excel with a side count. [often, an Ace side count]. Some counting methods have an extensive set of indexes.
And then of course, there is always the issue of fatigue and error. Does a two-level count introduce more counting errors? Does a balanced count introduce errors because of errors in estimating decks remaining? Are there additional errors introduced because some people have trouble converting from a running count to a true count while at the tables?
But I digress. Mostly I am objecting a vigorous defense of a counting method without specifying the conditions under which the method will be used, plus how many indexes are used, side counts, etc.
terry0222,
If a player cannot keep a strong count with, at minimum, a side-count of Aces
then s/he needs to accept that their level of concentration, short-term memory
skills, etc. "is what it is" and should use a simple count, as errors in play cost
money, as do incorrect estimates of shoe penetration, poor recall of indices
etc. I M H O this is largely an ego problem.
As I age, I find myself less and less able to play with sublime accuracy.
Accepting the truth is a bit painful, to understate the case, BUT most
of us are young and intelligent. Do your best, but be honest with yourself as to
how well you play under the table conditions that are applicable to 'your' game.
Bookmarks