Simple. I’m considering 2 different counts. One is much easier to count, while the other is harder but I’ve got it down. Just wondering if I’m working to hard for minimal gain. The easier count has a BC of .96 while the harder count has a BC of .993. Playing shoe games, does that .033 really matter?
Small incremental gains add up significantly. If you spend years doubling your bankroll six times player A with a 1.05% edge has 25% more money than player B with a 1% edge. That's tens of thousands of dollars or even more depending on the exact approach. This is mainly because of a kind of compound interest effect where an extra cent you might be earning from a session grows into a huge amount of money over a long enough time period.Originally Posted by InvertedBagofHolding
You'll need to do calculations based on your own actual play to find if that crude estimate is representative but generally speaking the compounding effect always becomes significant over time.
So if you could play the harder system perfectly all other things being equal, yes, it is worth it, even though you won't notice any difference at all in the short term.
The issue is can you play the harder system perfectly all things being equal? You can reduce this to a formula, something like:
Gains
____________________________
Errors+Play Speed+Heat Factor
- Gains: Represents the expected monetary gains from using the count system.
- Errors: Accounts for the errors introduced by the count system.
- Play Speed: Reflects the speed of play.
- Heat Factor: Represents the impact of the count system on attracting casino heat or suspicion and associated reduction in win rate.
You can make this formula more accurate but also more complex with other considerations which may affect your win rate.
You can estimate these factors based on publicly available literature for a generic estimate but it is much better to get the data from your own play
from simulation.
There are a few other factors that rarely get discussed in the context of a more advanced system I want to emphasize:
1. People generally assume the complexity of a count system and increased error have a linear relationship. They don't. Human error doesn't work that way. Human psychology is complex.
Obviously a system beyond the mental abilities of a card counter is going to increase error. However a system that is beneath the abilities of a card counter becomes tedious to use and tedium is also a major source of error.
2. Most pit personnel trained to count cards will be using hi-lo. Higher level count systems are not perfectly correlated with hi-lo. They are generally quite close but if your count system causes you to make a big bet when hi-lo would recommend otherwise and this buys you extra time at your favorite candy store-that is a big deal.
Last edited by Archvaldor; 02-08-2024 at 01:10 AM.
Not always does a higher BC imply a better SCORE, unless you're playing pure basic strategy. Once you incorporate indices into your game, the PE comes into play, and if this efficiency is good, it can compensate and even improve a lower BC, resulting in a better SCORE.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
In a perfect world where you would never be backed off, you would learn the hardest count of which you are capable and apply the highest bet spread your bankroll could handle. It would be a no-brainer.
But we don't live in that world.
The math should be secondary. First, you should choose the count that allows you to have the lowest possible bet spread that still makes you enough per hour to be satisfied.
I admit that this is more of an issue for SD and DD games, but if you run numbers on a 6D game and discover that you can implement a lower bet spread on a harder count than an easier count, you should probably go with it. Casinos look for two main things to ID you as a counter, how you play your hands and your bet spread. Which of the two do you think makes them more nervous? It's definitely the spread.
Center everything around longevity. If your EV is not high enough, then go with the bigger spread, but consider how long you can play. Your hands per hour are dependent on the speed of the dealers. But they're MORE dependent on your ability to play at all.
Playing for a year with any count will make you more money than one month with the hardest count.
Most counters lose money because they don't play and count perfectly. That's why I recommend most people use Hi Lo.
That said, there is enough of a gain from the good level 2 counts, like RPC and Zen, that it makes sense for some people to consider it.
For me, I want a simple count system that I can play reliably for many hours and not look like I'm counting, as well as doing shuffle tracking.
The Cash Cow.
What percentage of play opportunities afford you the chance to shuffle track? In my experience, the only time I see a hand shuffle is if the ASMs keep getting red lights. I assumed that in today's casino environment there is next to zero opportunity for tracking shuffles. If this is still a viable skill to be learned I fret my preparation is all the more delayed.
Can confirm. I found a few trackable shuffles in Vegas off-Strip as well as one property on-Strip. They were highly specific to each dealer, so any opportunities for re-attacking their tables in this way have likely come and gone by now. If the time and effort devoted to learning this skill is to have any decent returns, they lie in your ability to notice these non-random shuffling procedures and idiosyncratic dealing habits as they might arise during actual play. Stay alert.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks