# Thread: Griffin Ultimate Count

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

## Griffin Ultimate Count

I'm researching counting systems for a book I'm writing and I'm trying to find details of how the 'Griffin Ultimate Count' system works. All I can find online is the card values but I can't find anything about the key counts or the betting strategy. Can anyone help or point me where I can find this information?

Thanks.

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Such counts are theoretical, not fleshed out as real strategies as they cannot be used by a human and a machine wouldn't need a counting strategy.

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by BlackDice
I'm researching counting systems for a book I'm writing and I'm trying to find details of how the 'Griffin Ultimate Count' system works. All I can find online is the card values but I can't find anything about the key counts or the betting strategy. Can anyone help or point me where I can find this information?

Thanks.
What is the topic of the book? What information will it contain?

Don

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

## Griffin Ultimate Count

Originally Posted by Norm
Such counts are theoretical, not fleshed out as real strategies as they cannot be used by a human and a machine wouldn't need a counting strategy.
Griffin Ultimate Count has must be have these correlations:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-60 37 45 52 70 46 27 0 -17 -50

how do you correlate bet with the True Count?

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I heard of this term “Griffin Ultimate Count” but never thought that make any sense. Peter Griffin considered single-deck blackjack stand-17 rules to obtain these numbers, but today’s games are in no way close to these rules. That means it is basically useless. Right?

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
It was always useless as a practical count. It is a theoretic observation.

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by wax
Griffin Ultimate Count has must be have these correlations:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-60 37 45 52 70 46 27 0 -17 -50

how do you correlate bet with the True Count?
Don't you think it is very close to Zen or Halves, just dividing the tag by 25:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
-2.4 1.5 2 2 2.8 2 1 0 -0.7 -2

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by wax
Griffin Ultimate Count has must be have these correlations:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-60 37 45 52 70 46 27 0 -17 -50

how do you correlate bet with the True Count?
About Griffin EORs: they are known to be for SD but it was never made clear what rules they were calculated for. Most of the possible scenarios were calculated through careful combinatorial analysis and dumped into BJA3. If you don't have the book, I would recommend getting a copy.
In any case, those published in TOB lack the precision that can be achieved today, so I would not use them as a panacea. Accuracy in EORs is very important.

Sincerely,
Cac

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by wax
Griffin Ultimate Count has must be have these correlations:
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-60 37 45 52 70 46 27 0 -17 -50

how do you correlate bet with the True Count?
A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-60 37 45 52 70 46 27 0 -17 -50

For sd, ndas, spl3 and spa1

Count correlation:0.999065

For 6 dks, das, spl3 and spa1

Count correlation: 0.997488

Made in “Taiwan” copy, for 6 dks and same rules:

-58 39 44 60 76 42 27 0 -22 -52

Count correlation: 0.99971

Good Luck!

Zenfighter

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
About using a system with the highest BC.
The first time I read TOB, it also caught my attention that there could be a counting system that was, even if it had a very high level of difficulty, superior to all existing ones.
The task seemed simple, we simply had to find a system that had a correlation coefficient as close to 1.0 as possible. It didn't matter if the one with the best BC was level 12. Actually, anything higher than 0.995 would do.
But was that enough? No, it was not. In addition, this system had to have a PE or PC that was also superior to that of the rest of the existing systems. It was impossible, in a single counting system, to get both. Therefore, it was necessary to search manually, through trial and error, for the best combination between BC and PE.
But for the evaluation of a counting system, it is best to use the concept of SCORE or DI or N0 and not the best combination between BC and PE.

Anyway, for those interested in a balanced system with a very high BC, here's one. It's level 7, but to use it you have to be Rainman

(A to T): -6 4 4 5 7 5 3 0 -2 -5

Here are the SCOREs for 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,4.5/6, R22 indices:

1-12: 23.52
1-16: 27.63

BC: 0.9978
IC: 0.7235
PC: 0.7669 (for the R22 plays)

Enjoy!
Cac

PS: There are level 2 counting systems that are better than the mentioned level 7 and have a lower BC.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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