See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 66 to 78 of 103

Thread: More Indices or Higher Level Count

  1. #66


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gramazeka View Post
    \Where will he stick Bjanalyst his chips with a fast dealer or when using tracking?
    The shoe game is exceedingly slow with plenty of time to update the side counts with chips and I found I still have extra time left over after updating my side counts. That has been my experience. And it just tales practice, like first learning how to count, and you can keep the side counts with chips.

    As far as fast dealers go, you can always slow them down by taking a few extra seconds to make your playing decisions. The dealers must wait for your decision before they can move on. But I have never had that problem. I have always been able to update my counts with chips and did not need any extra time to make my playing decision to slow the dealer down.

    I keep KO in my head and update AA89mTc with chips on the fly as he cards are dealt and then after the cards are dealt I scan for five and nines played and update the 5m9c chip stack.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 09-19-2020 at 10:12 PM.

  2. #67


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by seriousplayer View Post
    Higher level counts with less indices outperform level one counts with 100+ indices. Wong Halves with Catch 22 indices outperforms Hi-lo full with 100+ indices. Even using unbalanced counts UBZII with Catch 22 indices outperforms Hi-lo Full with 100+ indices. Don't believe do a simulation with CVCX and compare.
    Here is a compromise I suggested at the beginning of this thread if player is back counting as only one out of ever four shoes are ever played.

    If you are using a higher level count to back count you are wasting a lot of mental energy back courting the three out of four shoes that are never played. This wasted mental energy can lead to fatigue and maybe even errors when you finally enter a game that you will be playing.

    So my suggestion was to start back counting with the HL. If tc(HL) > 1 so that table entry is pending, then switch to Wong's Halves (WH) starting WH at the HL count that you back counted with and then use the HL or WH indices (they are very close) for playing decisions.

    So you give up a little precision by not using WH from the beginning of the shoe but you gain from less fatigue and errors when you actually play and the hybrid WH/HL count is better than the HL but not quite as good as the WH but still good.

    So you are expending your extra mental energy in keeping WH only when it counts - when you are acutely playing the shoe.

    The can be done with WH because that tag values and indices of WH and HL are very close.

  3. #68
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,438


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    The shoe game is exceedingly slow with plenty of time to update the side counts with chips and I found I still have extra time left over after updating my side counts. That has been my experience. And it just tales practice, like first learning how to count, and you can keep the side counts with chips.

    As far as fast dealers go, you can always slow them down by taking a few extra seconds to make your playing decisions. The dealers must wait for your decision before they can move on. But I have never had that problem. I have always been able to update my counts with chips and did not need any extra time to make my playing decision to slow the dealer down.

    I keep KO in my head and update AA89mTc with chips on the fly as he cards are dealt and then after the cards are dealt I scan for five and nines played and update the 5m9c chip stack.
    Trust me, I'm not trying to offend you. On the contrary, I respect your work and mental efforts. But I just want to guide you on the right path of simplicity, versatility and power at the same time. This concerns your system and the time spent on the forum. Simplify your system and simplify your writing. Further, it seems to me that you stopped at one casino, where you actually won nothing, based on the result of the money balance. And if you are tolerated in this casino, this does not mean that history will repeat itself in another casino with regard to the speed of the dealer, the rules and conditions of the game. Next - please answer my questions- 1. What will you do with a fast dealer? 2. What will you do with poor penetration? 3. How do you apply Wonging on two tables? These questions are about your system and its versatility. Me and 99% of readers are trying to tell you that you have invented a bicycle that is applicable in narrow specific conditions. And if you don't see the obvious in the future of your gambling career, then you're terribly blind. It's obvious to me that your system is only good on paper and in computer simulations, not in real life.
    "Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)

  4. #69


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The CV flash drills make memorization easy, so there's no reason not to learn at least 40-50 indices. Beyond that the returns are negligible, if you chose the right 50.

    I prefer KO. With the right indices, it slightly outperforms Hi-Lo on 1-2D and has parity on 6D (plus in practice it will be played more accurately). The downside of KO is how much the indices differ between 2D and 6D (but the 6D indices work fine on 8D. In fact the canned Reko-F 6D strat is very nearly optimal and works better on 8D than the Reko-F 8D strat) If you are going level 2, use zen, but don't use the 6D indices that come with CVBJ. The other day I made 56 RA indices for zen that performed 26% better than the canned zen original 6D sim (and only 3% worse than halves full). And of course zen is way ahead of halves on 1-2D because of playing efficiency.
    zen_better_indices.jpgko_shoe_full.jpgKO_DD_best.jpg

  5. #70


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    [QUOTE=Gramazeka;291734\- 1. What will you do with a fast dealer? 2. What will you do with poor penetration? 3. How do you apply Wonging on two tables? These questions are about your system and its versatility. Me and 99% of readers are trying to tell you that you have invented a bicycle that is applicable in narrow specific conditions. And if you don't see the obvious in the future of your gambling career, then you're terribly blind. It's obvious to me that your system is only good on paper and in computer simulations, not in real life.[/QUOTE]

    I have been using my system for years with excellent results and built in casino camouflages play as well so it is not just good on paper and computer simulations. .

    1. I have never had a problem updating my side counts with chips no matter how fast the dealer was. I keep KO in my head and update AA89mTc chip stack on the fly as the cards are dealt and then after all cards are dealt I scan for fives and nines played and update the 5m9c side count. I move these chips automatically with virtually no mental effort and it is very quick and I actually have excess time left over after the cards are dealt. Finally if the dealer was really that fast I could always take a few extra seconds to decide what to do with my hand. The dealer cannot deal faster than you can make your decision - he has to wait. But in the years I have been using my side counts I have never had to resort to slow down the dealer by taking my time to make my playing decision. It just takes a little practice to update the side counts with chips and it is very easy to do. I do not remember the value of theses side counts. When I need their value I just look at the how many chips are in the AA89mTc and 5m9c stacks. if the stacks are to the right of the betting chips the side count is positive an if to the left the side count is negative. I do not know what else to tell you. For me keeping the side count with chips is second nature and very, very easy to do with almost zero mental effort. I do it automatically and I just keep the KO in my head. I actually have enough time left over after updating the AA89mTc and 5m9c to keep a third side count such as Am8c is I wanted to but I have stopped at two side counts because of the law of diminishing law of returns of adding a third side count and also the real estate problem of where to put the 3rd side count of chips so they do not bump into my AA89mTc and 5m9c stacks. So for now I will stick with the KO and two side counts. Maybe in the future I will add a third side count. The HL w AA78mTc and 5m9c is the HL version of the KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c so if you are using HL you can continue to use HL and no need to learn an Table of Critical Running Counts which is needed with the KO.

    2. Obviously I would not play at a casino with poor penetration. It is game selection. I play at a casino with the best penetration and rules and profitable side bets that I can find. The casino I play at is six decks, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS, Super 4 and Lucky Ladies offered with full LL payout. With LL side bet your edge can be as high as 20% or more at times but there is also a lot of variance which means you cannot go crazy with your LL bets and besides LL side bet is capped at $25 maximum at the casino I play at.

    3a. I do not back count two tables at the same time. My reply was to the player who back counted two tables at the same time with the HL. And I suggested that is great and then when you actually find the table you are playing at to switch to Wong's Halves (WH) staring WH at at HL count you left off at. This technique can also be used if back counting only one table. Start off with HL and then switch back counting to WH starting at the HL count you had f tc(HL) > 1 so it looks like table entry is immanent. So you will be using a hybrid WH/HL count which is better than the HL but not as good as WH but saves you tons of mental effort wasted on the three out of four shoes you never enter. I wrote this for the HL player who does not want to use any side counts and was considering a higher level count. This gives the best of both where you use WH only when you are actually going to play the table and the simple HL otherwise.

    3b. Now getting to back counting with KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c. Most of the time I start playing off the top of the six-deck shoe with my $15 bet on one hand then if the count goes bad I stay out of several hands and if really bad I have the dealer put a marker to hold my spot and leave the table and come back next show. But for shoes that I would back count (such as if I was stuck with an 8 deck game) what I would do, if I am too lazy to back count with both KO and AA89mTc and 5m9c (which I can do but may want to save mental effort) I would back count with just KO and AA89mTc and then upon table entry where I could use chips I would start my 5m9c chip stack at zero.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 09-20-2020 at 12:19 AM.

  6. #71
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,438


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Bjanalyst,
    1. Obviously, you are a red-chip player, you are playing in the crowd and your game is slow. Now you can guess how much I will win more than you, preferring to play heads-up with the dealer, using green, black and purple chips, with a very high speed of play, using a simple Hi Lo.
    2. Can you imagine how much greater my profitability is if I play with great pleasure in a casino with a bad penetration ?
    3. You do not play 2 tables at the same time, I already understood that.
    And this is what I call real life, not computer simulations. So whose system is better and why do we need your bike?
    Last edited by Gramazeka; 09-20-2020 at 03:33 AM.
    "Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)

  7. #72


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gramazeka View Post
    Bjanalyst,
    1. Obviously, you are a red-chip player, you are playing in the crowd and your game is slow. Now you can guess how much I will win more than you, preferring to play heads-up with the dealer, using green, black and purple chips, with a very high speed of play, using a simple Hi Lo.
    2. Can you imagine how much greater my profitability is if I play with great pleasure in a casino with a bad cut?
    3. You do not play 2 tables at the same time, I already understood that.
    And this is what I call real life, not computer simulations. So whose system is better and why do we need your bike?
    1. Yes, I bet from one hand of $15 to maximum bet of two hands of $100 so compared to you and am betting peanuts.

    2. OK. Now I know why you are playing with a bad cut - because you are playing for such large stakes. And you use the HL for speed. In your cases they would be watching you very closely because you are playing for such high stakes so for you they would probably notice you moving around chips especially since you are playing heads up in addition to high stakes. In your case using chips for AA78mTc would be moving a lot of chips and would attract attention unless you can keep AA78mTc mentally. i can keep KO and AA89mTc mentally or KO and 5m9c mentally but I cannot keep both side counts with the KO mentally. You are using the HL so the HL version is HL w AA78mTc and 5m9c. My suggestion since you probably would not get away with using chips for your side count and also since you have lousy penetration is to increase betting efficiency since betting efficiency is most important with lousy penetration. I would suggest increasing betting efficiency by keeping your HL and keep 5m9c as a side count mentally. Keeping one level one side count which recognizes only two ranks mentally is easy to do. And use brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) for betting. Since you still have HL for your primary count you can use HL for all playing strategy changes and use the HL indices and use 5m9c to help only with betting. There are actually a few strategy plays that 5m9c helps the HL with also that you should also use.

    I had mentioned HL w 5m9c in a previous post, but I will attach a small PDF with a summary of the HL w 5m9c to this post.

    Here was the previous post that I mentioned HL w 5m9c. Read my initial first thread on the post.
    https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...de-count-to-HL

    A player was gong to do some sims to verify my results but never got around to doing the sims. Also there are many insults by other readers on this post which are personal attacks on my character which I do not like. So if you read through this thread keep in mind these insists. Also keep in mind that my analysis with CC and LSL has been proven correct and in sync with over 20 sims by Gronbog. Every time my CC increase the SCORE increased. No one has yet found a single mistake in any or my work. Many, many insults to me and my character - all what i cell destructive criticism. But no one has yet to come up and tell me I was incorrect. My analysis is correct and my estimate that HL w 5m9c should tie Wong's Halves is also correct. I am sure if that reader in this post who offered to do sims ever did them that the sims would once again verify my CC analysis.

    3. You are correct. It was not me back counting two tables simultaneously it was another reader.

    So just look at the attached HL w 5m9c. You are keeping your HL so you have nothing new to learn. And you are just mentally keeping the 5m9c and using it for betting and to improve a few selected strategy changes. It should be noted that the 5m9c helps with every late surrender strategy change and the adjustment is very very simple. Simply create mentally what I call a psrc = playing strategy running count where in the case of surrender psrc = HL + 5m9c. So just add 5m9c to the HL to get psrc for late surrender. Then use psrc along with the HL surrender indices to determine when to surrender. And there are a few other important strategy changes which are listed in the attached PDF. You are keeping 5m9c mainly for improved betting but since you are keeping 5m9c anyhow, the 5m9c is available for a few other strategy changes for free.

    My estimate based on my CC method of comparison between different counts, which has bene proven remarkably accurate with Gronbog's sims, is that HL w 5m9c should tie Wong's Halves. But keeping 5m9c with HL is easier that keeping WH and you get to keep all of your HL indices as well and the HL is used for the majority of playing strategy changes also. So very little new to learn.

    I am also attaching another small PDF to this post that shows using chips for teh 5m9c side count. You may be able to get away with using one stack of chips for 5m9c because 5m9c counts only two ranks and is not updated that often - if no five or nines come out in a given round 5m9c is not update at all and also if the the number of five and nines are that come out during a given round are equal the 5m9c is not updated. So 5m9c is updated only once in a while and with heads up play you would probably be moving only one chip in or out of the 5m9c stack only once in a while to update 5m9c. So the 5m9c stack is just put to the side of your betting chips and the casino would just think you are playing with your chips. So I think you can get away with keeping a 5m9c side count stack of chips easily.

    Note that both PDFs are two pages so please look at both pages of the attached PDFs. And in the 2nd PDF that I am attaching now. the second pages shows the BCC = betting correlation Coefficient and you can see that HL + (1/2)*(5m9c) BCC captures around (2/3) of the betting gain if Wong's Halves were used instead. Also WH deteriorates the insurance play whereas you are using HL for insurance so no deterioration in insurance (Actually you can use psrc = HL - (1/2)*(5m9c) = HL + (1/2)*(9m5c) for insurance which helps only marginally with the insurance decision so you can forget this - jest mentioned to be more complete).

    HL w 5m9c.pdf
    HL w 5m9ic chips.pdf
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 09-20-2020 at 03:25 AM.

  8. #73
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,438


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Finally, you began to reason correctly and understand me. Now regarding your advice, but i am ST master, and your valuable advice for a regular counter will personally only prevent me from focusing on zones and slugs. Although I did similar research 15 years ago for a double deck for Hi Lo and came to EBJ2/2.

    P.s. Now I'll give you some advice - read more about Snyder and the Alienated.
    Last edited by Gramazeka; 09-20-2020 at 03:29 AM.
    "Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)

  9. #74


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gramazeka View Post
    Finally, you began to reason correctly and understand me. Now regarding your advice, but i am ST master, and your valuable advice for a regular counter will personally only prevent me from focusing on zones and slugs. Although I did similar research 15 years ago for a double deck for Hi Lo and came to EBJ2/2.

    P.s. Now I'll give you some advice - read more about Snyder and the Alienated.
    Oh. So no only are you playing head up high stakes, you are dealing with a hand shuffled game and are tracking slugs and zones.

    You play an entirely different game that I play which is low limit and automatic shuffler (no hand shuffles) so no chance to track slugs or zone which I would not be able to do anyhow. So your advice on shuffle tracking would not do me any good anyhow even if I could shuffle track.

    So you are the author of EBJ2/2. Nice job. Your EBJ2/2 system was mentioned to me when Gronbog did some sims for HL with 7m9c. Your EBJ2/2 is HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) I believe, a level 2 system and brc = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) which is your EBJ2/2 level two count. HL w 7m9c beats EBJ2/2 because of the flexibility of HL + k*(7m9c) for various strategy plays. In your count system k = 1/2 for betting and all strategy plays, In HL + k*(7m9c) the value of k can vary to maximize the absolute value of the CC between the tag values of the derived count and the EoR for each strategy change so it is slightly better than your EBJ2/2. Also HL w 7m9c lets you keep your HL and a simple 7m9c side count. For example, your EBJ2/2 count deteriorates the insurance play whereas using HL + k*(7m9c) you just let k = 0 for insurance and you are using stand alone HL for insurance with no deterioration.

    At any rate slug and zone tracking is very, very difficult and from what I read is hard to get correct. Focus on your slugs and zones then, but if you can surreptitiously use chips for the 5m9c side count why not add that to your tool kit. I like HL w 5m9c better than HL w 7m9c because the strategy changes with 5m9c are simpler and the HL indices are used for these strategy change as well so no new indices to learn. The major 5m9c strategy changes are


    1. brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(5m9c)
    2. Use HL + 5m9c with HL indices in place of HL for these strategy changes:
      1. Standing on hard 16 v 8, 9, T.
      2. Standing on hard 15 v T
      3. Doubling hard 9 v 7
      4. ALL surrender decisions

    3. Stand on hard 16 v 7 if tc(HL) >= 4 and 5m7c >= 2*dr where dr = decks remaining
    4. All other playing strategy decisions use the stand-alone HL and HL indices.


    So I would consider adding 5m9c with chips (so you are not distracted) to your HL and slug and zone tracking. You should take advantage of every edge you can get.

    If you can keep track of slugs and zones then you definitely should be able to pull of keeping the 5m9c with a stack of chips to the side of your betting chips that you surreptitiously update only once in a while by moving only one or two chips in or out of the 5m9c stack. This makes it look like you are just playing with your betting chips and the stack updated only once in a while should not draw any unwanted attention. I am sure that you are an expect at cover play anyhow so I am sure you know what to do.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 09-20-2020 at 04:11 AM.

  10. #75


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    Here is a compromise I suggested at the beginning of this thread if player is back counting as only one out of ever four shoes are ever played.

    If you are using a higher level count to back count you are wasting a lot of mental energy back courting the three out of four shoes that are never played. This wasted mental energy can lead to fatigue and maybe even errors when you finally enter a game that you will be playing.
    Easy! Backcount using an unbalanced count system, like UBZII or Uston SS. No division needed.

  11. #76
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Assuming that you have a reasonable view, back counting takes substantially less energy than playing. You aren't making playing and betting decisions, and you don't have to calculate TC unless it is obviously close to entry point.

    Back counting with one count and then sitting and using another makes no sense to me. Forget the decreased accuracy. Counting becomes automatic and trivial if you use one count. If you are switching between counts, both counts are more difficult.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  12. #77


    0 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Back counting with one count and then sitting and using another makes no sense to me. Forget the decreased accuracy. Counting becomes automatic and trivial if you use one count. If you are switching between counts, both counts are more difficult.
    I had made this suggestion of back counting and playing with different counts for the HL player who was thinking of switching to Wong's Halves (WH) for increased betting efficiency.

    The WH is very similar to HL so you can pick up the WH count at the HL count you had for shoes that you actually play with very little loss in accuracy and use the HL indices for playing strategy and your hybrid HL/WH count for improved betting. You cannot do this with any two counts - the counts have to be very similar to do this switching.

    If you can keep WH flawlessly for shoe after shoe including shoes you never play then great. But you even said WH was difficult.

    You had mentioned in a previous thread that you do not like anything larger than level 2 and thought that WH being a level 3 count was very difficult.

    So keeping WH is difficult even if back counting. So I was trying to think of a compromise where player would get most of he benefit of added betting efficiency of WH without having to keep WH for every shoe back counted.

    Given that three of our four shoes are never played, if you are back counting each shoe with WH you are wasting a lot of mental energy in shoes that are never played. Better to save that mental energy for shoes that you will actually play is my thought where you will be sharp and not make mistakes because you are not exhausted from keeping WH for the 75% of shoes you never played and you will also be able to play more hours doing this.

    So I thought a good compromise was to back count all shoes with the HL. If the tc(HL) > 1 only then start counting with WH picking up the WH count using the HL count you had as the starting point of WH.

    WH is very similar to HL so you can then use HL indices with this hybrid HL/WH count and gain some of the betting efficiency of WH and save yourself lot of mental energy as you are keeping WH only when are actually going to use it.

    Anyhow that was just my suggestion to save mental energy of keeping WH for every shoe including the 75% of shoes you never play.

    Do you still think this hybrid HL/WH count is a bad idea?

  13. #78
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Yes, for the exact reasons I stated. You are dropping the more difficult count when it is easier to use, and forcing a mind switch between two counts in the same shoe, increasing errors and difficulty while decreasing speed.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Level 1 count versus Level 2 count
    By winnawinna in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 01-11-2018, 08:30 AM
  2. Level 2 count system
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 09:40 AM
  3. Best Level Three Count <?>
    By ZenMaster_Flash in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-06-2013, 07:25 PM
  4. gazman: Level 2 count
    By gazman in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 01-26-2005, 06:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.