Peter Griffin -Card value +1 -1 etc.

[Sundown]

If 2, 3, 4 ,5 6, 7,8, 9, A, 10, are not equal in terms of advantage when removed from the deck, then how come we label them with the same value such as +1 or -1 in hi lo or KO? Are we only concerned with the richness in 10s and Aces and not the actual advantage?

[iCountNTrack]

If 2, 3, 4 ,5 6, 7,8, 9, A, 10, are not equal in terms of advantage when removed from the deck, then how come we label them with the same value such as +1 or -1 in hi lo or KO? Are we only concerned with the richness in 10s and Aces and not the actual advantage?

Count tags were designed to make a seriously non-linear problem a linear one for human brain to use. It's obviously not perfect but still effective

[Sidecount]

If you wanted to determine the more precise advantage you would need to do crap like counting +83 +64 -112 and also sorts of nonsense.

The +1 and -1 is from rounding. Same for Level 2 counts and other counts.

They give you a good enough idea of when you have an advantage. And enough to be correct or "close" most of the time is good enough to make a profit.

Card counting is full of compromises. For one play the effect of remove of one card can work the other way than how you actually counted it. A 6 is not a card you actually want when you hit your 16 vs. 10 for example. But it is still lumped in with the cards that actually do help you like 2s and 4s and 5s.

You estimate the TC and all sorts of other stuff when counting. Even if you had a Level 114 count in your head that included +83 and -114 or whatever, there would still be compromises on some of your plays and deviations and probably even on your betting correlation too

[Sundown]

So am I correct in that the count is to really only keep track of high cards in relation to low cards...10s &Aces vs 2,3,4,5 etc.?

[Cacarulo]

So am I correct in that the count is to really only keep track of high cards in relation to low cards...10s &Aces vs 2,3,4,5 etc.?

Not only to keep track of high cards and low cards. There are also cards that are neither high nor low. The important thing to consider is not just that
record but also how well that counting system correlates with the EORs. The higher the correlation, the better the system will be.
Perhaps you should read TOB by Peter Griffin more thoroughly.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Sundown]

Will do thanks. Do you know already which system offers the best correlation? I play K0 , but was disappointed when I made a few insurance plays and there was nothing in the hole.

[Cacarulo]

Will do thanks. Do you know already which system offers the best correlation? I play K0 , but was disappointed when I made a few insurance plays and there was nothing in the hole.

This is not an easy question to answer since there are several correlations. We have BC (Betting Correlation), PC (Playing Correlation), and in turn, each side bet also has its correlation, for example, IC (Insurance Correlation).
Furthermore, each correlation varies depending on the rules of the game you are facing, number of decks, S17 or H17, DAS or NDAS, DOA or not, LS, ES or NS, etc. etc. On the other hand, when using a formula to calculate
a correlation, it is always done based on a system played in "TC mode" and not in "RC mode". For example, KO does not have a defined correlation, whereas TKO does.
The system with the best level 1 BC is precisely TKO followed by Hi-Lo.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Sundown]

Yea it does help. I'm actually already using TKO or a slight version of it found in the book The Color of Blackjack.

[Sidecount]

You were disappointed on individual insurance plays that didn't work out? Even with the most precise count in the world you aren't going to be exact with your insurance decisions. There are a lot of cards left in a shoe. Even at a monster 10% advantage at a really large count, you are going to not win your insurance bet many many times.

[Sundown]

Thanks Sidecount.