See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 103

Thread: More Indices or Higher Level Count

  1. #1


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    More Indices or Higher Level Count

    I got to thinking when I read Don's post below about how many indices one uses. It has been said that beyond the Catch 22 more indices don't help that much. Yet I noticed 21forme says he uses around 100 indices but is still using a low level count like Hi-Lo. Damn, a 100 indices must be a bitch to memorize for very little additional gain.

    Would it be better to use a higher level count (like Wong Halves) and forget about using more indices than the catch 22. Is there some break even point where learning a higher level count is better than adding any more indices? Any studies done on this?

  2. #2


    1 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I didn't sit down on day 1 with the goal of learning 100 indices. They came with years of play. For me, it's about making the game more interesting, not about huge increases in EV. When I'd run across a situation where I didn't know an index, I'd look it up in Wong's Prof BJ when I got home or back to my hotel room. Then I'd know it for when that play came up again 10,000 hands later

    I prefer a simpler count to minimize fatigue associated with long sessions and it also maintains my ability to count 2 tables at the same time under the right conditions, so I can quickly jump to a better game. Immediately jumping to a favorable shoe outweighs the 5-10% EV increase of a higher level count.

    And then there's Mr. CAA's tirade against Don about advocating learning only the I-18. As James says, why limit your EV at 18 indicies? Every little bit helps.

  3. #3


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    I prefer a simpler count to minimize fatigue associated with long sessions and it also maintains my ability to count 2 tables at the same time under the right conditions, so I can quickly jump to a better game. Immediately jumping to a favorable shoe outweighs the 5-10% EV increase of a higher level count.
    First I would prefer adding side counts to the HL or KO but I will answer this question under the assumption that the player only wants to keep one primary count and no side counts and the choice is between HL and Wong's Halves (WH) as the primary count.

    I like the idea of back counting two tables simultaneously with the HL and then jumping into whichever table is better.

    But you can also apply what I will mention below if you back count only one table with the HL

    Here is a compromise employing using only the HL at first to back count and then switching to WH upon table entry.

    Back count using HL as described above. This way you are not expending extra mental energy back counting table with WH that you will never be playing at. Only one out of four shoes become playable so save your energy of using WH for the shoes you actually end up playing.

    When the HL count indicated that you should enter the table you are actually gong to play at, then continue counting that table that you are actually playing at with WH starting WH at the HL count you had and use HL indices with this hybrid half HL and half WH count.

    So you are keeping the more complicated WH only when you are actually going to play and use it and you get some of the benefits of WH higher betting efficiency without having to keep WH for the entire shoe, including shoes you never play at.

  4. #4


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Midwest Player View Post
    I got to thinking when I read Don's post below about how many indices one uses. It has been said that beyond the Catch 22 more indices don't help that much. Yet I noticed 21forme says he uses around 100 indices but is still using a low level count like Hi-Lo. Damn, a 100 indices must be a bitch to memorize for very little additional gain.

    Would it be better to use a higher level count (like Wong Halves) and forget about using more indices than the catch 22. Is there some break even point where learning a higher level count is better than adding any more indices? Any studies done on this?
    I knew there was a chance that, by posting the poll, this type of discussion would ensue. I'm not going to respond because the project I'm currently working on (with Gronbog) directly relates to your question. I'll just say this and leave it at that: when over, it's going to be the biggest simulation project and study in the history of the game.

    Don

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Depends what's motivating you - neither will add much to EV unless maybe there's a specific game you're going to play - single deck or something - where indexes mean more or a different count is more accurate. If you're just looking for a challenge for its own sake, then it's up to you what's more fun!

  6. #6


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    And then there's Mr. CAA's tirade against Don about advocating learning only the I-18. As James says, why limit your EV at 18 indicies? Every little bit helps.
    https://youtu.be/tOEgqrwxVW0

    For the OP. Here is a video that Collin did from BJA comparing the I18 vs 40+ indices. I Dont know how accurate this is. But to sum up the video. A scenario with a spread 1-12, with same risk and gameplay. Adding the I18 will give you a 22% raise in EV vs just a basic strategy player. If you learn more indices (~40), your EV will increase from 22% to 26%. An additional 4%. It's up to you if you think learning another 20+ index is worth that additional 4%.

    If learning more does not hinder your speed of game play then why not go for it. But I always liked the K-I-S-S method (Keep It Simple Stupid).

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Unless I missed it, he doesn't give rules or numbers of decks. Can we assume 6D because that's what's on his table?

    There would be more value in deviations for DD games.

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    Unless I missed it, he doesn't give rules or numbers of decks. Can we assume 6D because that's what's on his table?

    There would be more value in deviations for DD games.
    He usually does videos on 6D H17.
    You're definitely right on value for DD.

  9. #9


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Midwest Player View Post
    Would it be better to use a higher level count (like Wong Halves) and forget about using more indices than the catch 22. Is there some break even point where learning a higher level count is better than adding any more indices? Any studies done on this?
    The problem with higher level counts is that once you choose tag values of each count, those tag values have to be used for betting and every playing strategy situation. By using a primary count and side count you can take linear combinations of the counts and get a smorgasbord of counts to choose from and you chose the derived count that maximizes the CC between the EoR and tag value of that derived count and then calculate the index for that derived count using LSL technique.

    Gronbog had simulated KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc derived from my technique described above and it left HO2 w ASC in the dust.

    I have developed a similar count for the HL which is HL with 5m9c and AA78mTc which using my CC comparisons which have proven to be extremely successful and in line with simulation results, I predict HL w 5m9c and AA78mTc will also smash HO2 w ASC and perform similar to KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc.

    So rather than learn dozens of indices for HL or Wong's Halves, you would be better off sticking to I18 and add 5m9c and AA789mTc as side counts to the HL. Of course, you can also add more indices for HL w 5m9c and AA78mTc beyond the I18 but even is you restrict yourself to the I18 which would limit the SCORE of HL w 5m9c and AA78mTc I still think it would beat HO2 w ASC with all indices and now you just have the I18 that needs to be remembered and keep 5m9c and AA78mTc with the HL.

    I emailed Gronbog a draft copy of my analysis of HL w 5m9c and AA78mTc which he can make comments on and share with Don or Norm if he wishes.
    Last edited by bjanalyst; 09-18-2020 at 06:25 AM.

  10. #10
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    The problem with higher level counts is that once you choose tag values of each count, those tag values have to be used for betting and every playing strategy situation.
    That's not a problem. That's an advantage. Vastly simpler than what you are talking about.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bjanalyst View Post
    The problem with higher level counts is that once you choose tag values of each count, those tag values have to be used for betting and every playing strategy situation. By using a primary count and side count you can take linear combinations of the counts and get a smorgasbord of counts to choose from and you chose the derived count that maximizes the CC between the EoR and tag value of that derived count and then calculate the index for that derived count using LSL technique.

    Gronbog had simulated KO with 5m7c and AA89mTc derived from my technique described above and it left HO2 w ASC in the dust.

    I have developed a similar count for the HL which is HL with 5m9c and AA78mTc which using my CC comparisons which have proven to be extremely successful and in line with simulation results, I predict HL w 5m9c and AA78mTc will also smash HO2 w ASC and perform similar to KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc.

    So rather than learn dozens of indices for HL or Wong's Halves, you would be better off sticking to I18 and add 5m9c and AA789mTc as side counts to the HL. Of course, you can also add more indices for HL w 5m9c and AA78mTc beyond the I18 but even is you restrict yourself to the I18 which would limit the SCORE of HL w 5m9c and AA78mTc I still think it would beat HO2 w ASC with all indices and now you just have the I18 that needs to be remembered and keep 5m9c and AA78mTc with the HL.

    I emailed Gronbog a draft copy of my analysis of HL w 5m9c and AA78mTc which he can make comments on and share with Don or Norm if he wishes.
    There isn't a single syllable in the above post that you haven't written VERBATIM (you just keep cutting and pasting the same claptrap) 20 times. Do you have no shame? How many more times will we read the same posts? If you have nothing new to say, can't you give us all a break and simply be quiet?

    Of course, if it were my board, ...

    Don

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    There isn't a single syllable in the above post that you haven't written VERBATIM (you just keep cutting and pasting the same claptrap) 20 times. Do you have no shame? How many more times will we read the same posts? If you have nothing new to say, can't you give us all a break and simply be quiet?

    Of course, if it were my board, ...

    Don
    Don this guy brings out the worst in people. He uses to many words and repeats the same bull shit over and over.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by beating vegas View Post
    Don this guy brings out the worst in people. He uses to many words and repeats the same bull shit over and over.
    The very personification of the meaning of the word "incorrigible," literally someone who is incapable of being corrected.

    Don

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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.