The gain from using lvl 2 count such as RPC or FLET are indeed mentally taxing, But Im afraid of lvl 1 count is not sufficent for the poor table rules.
A level 2 count isn't overkill. But if you are good at a level 1 count and play to its strengths while minimizing the impact of its weaknesses it should be sufficient to get you the money. Those that mastered level 2 counts find them effortless and perform them without even thinking about it. It is automatic.Originally Posted by cyz122409
Depends. I just like learning new things, even if they don't even have a real practical use. Depends on your philisophy and nature a bit. I always like having an extra challenge and learning new skills. So I learned a level 3 count even though only playing shoe games.
Was very slow at first but here 5 months later, can count a deck one card at a time in 15 seconds and 2 at a time in 11 seconds consistently now.
So I'd say i am faster with halves than a lot of people are with even hi lo. so I'd definitely say it's worth it. Yes the gain is small but also nothing to sneeze at
Not sure what hours played would have to do with it. I guess if long term goals include learning a new count, then that would obviously be a factor. Same thing with personal motivations, if someone was motivated to learn a higher level count for academic purposes, then go for it. But the OP is talking about the gain from a level 1 to a level 2 count.
Of the things you should worry about or focus on, the system you use (barring something stupid like the Ace-Six count or whatever it is), for almost all games, should be damn near last on your list. Wearing matching socks is probably more important.
There's nothing wrong with using a level 2 system, provided you already know it competently. But there is no practical purpose to switching from level 1 to level 2.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
If you find a dollar you may think it isn't much but if you find a dollar a minute it is a lot in the long run. Think about the analogy.
Like one pro that retired contemplated how much he left on the table by not using a stronger count in an article. It was like $5/hour, $5000/year, and hundreds of thousands over his career. And millions for the team he played on for a handful of years. I might not have the figures exact. I was pretty conservative with them. Probably multiples of what I said, but you get the idea.
" It was like $5/hour, $5000/year, and hundreds of thousands over his career."
Three, in real life, when one system says to bet $ 105 ( Halves ) and another system says to bet $ 95 ( Hi Lo)- in the end, everyone puts the same 100 $ !!! Therefore do not believe computer research !
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
Your logic is flawed. It suggests equal or very similar advantage or disadvantage, thus resulting, after rounding, the same average bet. The proper logic is that halves identifies marginal advantage or disadvantage better, thus resulting in minimum bets, or multi unit bets differing from hi lo, when it is appropriate to do so.
Like I said it was a link to a retired pro who passed up on the extra as being insignificant as he looked at the hourly but realized in retrospect he cost himself hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of his career. There is an hourly cost a yearly cost and a lifetime cost. When yowl at the hourly cost you think it isn't worth it but when you look at the cost for your career after having retired you think how nice it would be to have made hundreds of thousands more than you did. Then you decide it would have been worth it. Like they say hindsight is 20/20. Too bad he didn't have the benefit of someone that had retired and looked at things in retrospect to help him make a better career decision. The decision he made for the length of his career and the cost of keeping things simple cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most people don't have a long career as a full time pro but when they figure the cost they need to look at the big picture. If they will never amass much play they are giving up the same percentage but the pie is small. If they will have a ton of hours at high EV that percentage is from a massive pie or a mountain of pies. Hopefully you understand that what you are giving up is proportional to how much you play and at what EV. The same percentage looks like giving up almost nothing for the part time low level player, but for the full time pro with a long career they are giving up a huge amount of money in their career. In the article he pointed this out. There was a link to it on this site a while back. It was written in retrospect from a retired keep it simple career pro lamenting he had left low to mid 6 figures on the table from being so short sighted. The fact that he made millions in his career might make it look small but when he stopped earning he thought it was a huge amount of money to have left on the table over his decades of play and really regretted it.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks