Level 1 count versus Level 2 count

[BoSox]

Another IMHO, contrary opinions are expected and welcomed.

I just want to say that was one damn good post Stealth! I wish more players realized the importance of those words of yours.

[mcallister3200]

+2

[Freightman]

I just want to say that was one damn good post Stealth! I wish more players realized the importance of those words of yours.

Agreed. Execution is everything. If you can't count hi lo, you can't count halves, hi opt etc. Blackjack us a game of decisions. Proper decisions are based on proper information. Not keeping proper count leads to inferior decisions.

Crocodile Dundee finally made the right decision.
https://youtu.be/n6fgPX3NjyA

[21forme]

Well said, Stealth.

Here's another thought to ponder:

Counting cards is the lowest edge and most easily detected form of advantage play, regardless of count complexity (level X + indices). Rather than concentrate your limited time and energy on more complex counts, which provide little additional gain, think about and explore other forms of advantage play.

[seriousplayer]

All of you guys seem to want to get people to accept whatever opinion you have regarding who has the biggest whatever.

My advice is to select the count most suited to your style of play and then be excellent at whatever count you use. There is a cost associated with learning and maintaining each of the counts and that cost is not equal. Selecting the most difficult (math best?) count as a periodic weekend warrior is not likely a good decision. A lone wolf player (Pro!) should use the best system he can find that fits the games he plays and eek out every ounce of advantage in both count systems and indexes. We should counsel new players that the path to Pro should include a step wise progression through some simpler count. There is as much to learn about AP beside counting and walking before you run supports that needed experience.

The absolute nature of many responses in these never ending "which count" threads is not really helpful to the OP.

Another IMHO, contrary opinions are expected and welcomed.

Probably ZenMaster_Flash would disagree!

[BoSox]

We should counsel new players that the path to Pro should include a step wise progression through some simpler count. There is as much to learn about AP beside counting and walking before you run supports that needed experience.

Probably ZenMaster_Flash would disagree!

If history shows anything, without a doubt, ZMF, would in fact disagree. After decades of holding steadfast, and him taking a stand on this opinion, has always left me baffled and bewildered. Considering ZMF, has learned, and taken a very real slow road to gaming success "time consumed" as anyone could possibly have imagined, that evidently, he has either completely blocked from his mind, or does not want someone possibly doing the same type thing. Only what he neglects to mention is that his early years involved other forms of gambling for him and very little, "if any" blackjack, at all.

[seriousplayer]

If history shows anything, without a doubt, ZMF, would in fact disagree. After decades of holding steadfast, and him taking a stand on this opinion, has always left me baffled and bewildered. Considering ZMF, has learned, and taken a very real slow road to gaming success "time consumed" as anyone could possibly have imagined, that evidently, he has either completely blocked from his mind, or does not want someone possibly doing the same type thing. Only what he neglects to mention is that his early years involved other forms of gambling for him and very little, "if any" blackjack, at all.

I learn through life experience. I do what works and eliminate what does not work. I don't like to make mistakes when it come to blackjack. So I work on perfecting my games first before moving to a move advanced strategy. You can't be making counting mistakes once every shoes with Hi-opt 2. That is just too much. How you prefect that is what matters.

[Freightman]

Excellent posts SP and Bosox. If TC is a bucket then why not call it one or the other? If a bucket is deck composition then getting 500 out of just one number is tantamount to getting piano and banjo sounds out of blowing into an empty moonshine jug.

It all boils down to the tags assigned 2-7 vs 9-A and bet spread frequency and the amount allocated.

A bucket can be any size you want. Easiest example to explain is to do a quick sim on CVCX. Optimal betting will usually be displayed as wager per individual true count. CVCX allows you to also display by half true counts. Optimal betting by half true counts will be different, for example, for 1.0 to 1.5, 2.0 to 2.5 etc.

Further example.
Game has .5 house edge. Optimal betting shows raise at true 1 (true 1.0-1.99). By pure definition, there is still no advantage at 1.0, therefore your bet should still be 1 unit (I will often raise, quite prepared to trade variance with the house - different story)

I have often touted the concept of intrapolation in betting. Consider after first off the top hand, running counts if 6 and 9. True 1.0 technically no raise, but true 1.5 is definitely an advantage. Trust the point is made.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Originally Posted by seriousplayer
Probably ZenMaster_Flash would disagree!

Here is a none-too-succinct comment:

I have high-level respect for Stealth, who I have met.

I have mentored many in Hi-Opt II - and I still do.

In the last fewdays I was in 3 different states and I met up

with a regular poster, who experienced the "usual" and wanted

to meet me, buy me a fine dinner and "pick my brains" face to face.

The "usual" is an occasional poster on this forum who has (severely)

limited, (if any), success with a Level One count, generally Hi-Lo.

I had mentored him in Hi-Opt II. He and his spouse had been playing

professionally since and had earnings slightly above expectation.

We were soon joined by a close friend who I had trained intensively

allowing him to turn Pro two years ago. He is one of the brightest full-time

A.P.s and I laughingly call him "His Excellence, the Excel Master."

I have had this (virtually) identical scenario develop roughly 8 to 12

times in the last decade. Included in this semi-outlaw coterie of mine

(and found on this forum) is a humble woman who I rank as the overall

strongest BJ Player that I have ever trained, effortlessly surpassing my skill

level in a twinkling. Her camouflage, her cover, her casino comportment is

"second to none" myself specifically included. As females are a minuscule

minority among A.P.s she wisely does not divulge her gender online.

Most amateur Card Counters readily swallow what I refer to as the "Hi-Lo

Party-Line" In training, I often have the student play BJ using their Level

One count while I am simultaneously dealing and counting with Hi-Opt II.

I would be dealing the game H17 2 decks DAS 90% pen. Our betting and

our plays were sometimes only slightly different, but frequently they were

drastically divergent. Bet-sizing was always a shock as the Hi-Lo

betting was 'good' about 1/2 the time, but 1/4 of the time it resulted

in overbetting, (increasing variance) and 1/4 of the time it led to under-

betting ("leaving money on the table".) This inherent inaccuracy is the

direct result of ignoring the diverse E.O.R. of the low card ranks.

Hi-Lo groups Faces with Aces and that has only mild effects on

bet sizing, but it has a dramatic effect on playing indices. This is

especially noteworthy when contemplating doubling a hand where

Aces are a low card as is so with an 11 or a soft hand.

With Hi-Opt II my plays of several important hands are adjusted

by the Ace Side Count. Most notable are doubling with hard 10 or 11.

Splitting 9's vs the dealer Ace or the dealerSevenare very interesting.

For the former hand matchup, the T.C. adjustment is an amazing +/- 6

to the Running Count (equivalent to 3 face cards) for Surplus / Deficit Aces.

For thelatter it is +/- 4. I love splitting 9's vs. a dealer Ace!

The density of Aces also adjusts my True Count for Insurance purposes,

making the always important Insurance decision extremely accurate.

Particularly in Double Deck games, my Playing Efficiency is VERY high as I

have an extensive list of playing adjustments Re: the density of sevens (7's)

Half of all your hands are stiffs. Sevens are often crucially important,

especially when the dealer is displaying a 9 or 8 as those matchups

create Sevens (7's) that are "Key Cards" as the Sevens simultaneously

help you and can render the dealer's potential 'made' hand into a "stiff."

Peter Griffin's (The Theory of Blackjack, 6th ed.) explores the value

added by tracking the 7's.

I do not utilize a Seven side-count in shoe games due to diminishing

returns because of the dilution of the effects caused by multiple decks.

[DSchles]

"I have often touted the concept of intrapolation in betting."

Is that similar to interpolation?

Don

[Freightman]

"I have often touted the concept of intrapolation in betting."

Is that similar to interpolation?

Don

Clearly, your finding a typo or grammar faux pas in my posts is on your bucket list

[DSchles]

Clearly, your finding a typo or grammar faux pas in my posts is on your bucket list

Yeah, not like they're a dime a dozen, or anything like that! Actually, NOT finding a typo or grammar faux pas in your posts is high on my bucket list.

Don

[Freightman]

Yeah, not like they're a dime or dozen, or anything like that! Actually, NOT finding a typo or grammar faux pas in your posts is high on my bucket list.

Don

So, here I am, at my favourite French bakery cafe, listening to the Spinners on my iPad, enjoying coffee. I read your quoted post while taking a sip. I started laughing, realizing, perhaps for the first time, that Don has a sense of humour

I ended up snorting coffee up my nostrils. I trust that I can return the favour.