What about a HI/LO count with the following values? 2,3,4,5,6,7 you count with +1, and the
9,10,10,10,10(pictures),Ace you count -1.
Isn`t such a count more precise?(It is still a balanced count, but you have more information because you count the 7`s and the 9`.What would math people say?
> values? 2,3,4,5,6,7 you count with +1, and
> the
> 9,10,10,10,10(pictures),Ace you count -1.
> Isn`t such a count more precise?(It is still
> a balanced count, but you have more
> information because you count the 7`s and
> the 9`.What would math people say?
Yes this an absolutely dead-on count. The 7 sucks for the player and having more 9s in the deck will be a big help when the dealer has a 4,5, or 6 face up, causing the dealer to break more often in these situations (where all other things being equal the player will have more money on the table, due to more double downs and splits that will occur in these situations). The more information you put into your formula the better your results will be.
> What about a HI/LO count with the following
> values? 2,3,4,5,6,7 you count with +1, and
> the
> 9,10,10,10,10(pictures),Ace you count -1.
> Isn`t such a count more precise?(It is still
> a balanced count, but you have more
> information because you count the 7`s and
> the 9`.What would math people say?
Math people (and other knowledgeable people as well, such as myself) would say that you have just re-invented the Silver Fox count, also known as the Ito count.
However, it does not out-perform Hi-lo. In fact, Hi-lo out-performs it by a small margin. I'm no math whiz, but my guess is that while Hi-lo obviously under-values the 7 and 9, the Silver Fox count similarily over-values them by counting them the same as a 5 and 10 respectively.
There is a reason Hi-lo remains the most popular count after 40 years. No one has been able to significantly improve on it without going to multi-level tags and/or side counts.
> Yes this an absolutely dead-on count. The 7
> sucks for the player and having more 9s in
> the deck will be a big help when the dealer
> has a 4,5, or 6 face up, causing the dealer
> to break more often in these situations
> (where all other things being equal the
> player will have more money on the table,
> due to more double downs and splits that
> will occur in these situations).
In point of fact, neither the 7 nor the 9 are very important cards in the grand scheme of things, especially in multi-deck games, where a large spread makes betting correlation more important than playing efficiency.
The Silver Fox (Ito) count is excellent and performs similarly to hi-lo. That said, it will underperform slightly in shoe games, because its BC is inferior to hi-lo's, while its PE is slightly superior. Depending on the spread employed and the number of indices used, the relative importance of the two above-mentioned parameters varies.
>The more information you put into your formula the better your results will be.
But, the information has to be accurate. Simply reckoning more ranks is NOT a guarantee that the count is "better."
Don
> > There is a reason Hi-lo remains the most
> popular count after 40 years. No one has
> been able to significantly improve on it
> without going to multi-level tags and/or
> side counts.
I am just now learning to count. Predominately I will play a game of 6D S17 DA2 DAS.
QFIT.com, ranks both the BC and PE of the KO count higher than Hi-Lo. Would I not be better off learning the KO count as opposed to the Hi-Lo? (Curiously I think it also gives it a slightly higher ease of use score although KO requires counting an add'l card??)
Thanks for the input.
> I am just now learning to count.
> Predominately I will play a game of 6D S17
> DA2 DAS.
> QFIT.com, ranks both the BC and PE of the KO
> count higher than Hi-Lo.
That would surprise me. Unbalanced counts don't have PEs.
Don
> I am just now learning to count.
> Predominately I will play a game of 6D S17
> DA2 DAS.
> QFIT.com, ranks both the BC and PE of the KO
> count higher than Hi-Lo. Would I not be
> better off learning the KO count as opposed
> to the Hi-Lo? (Curiously I think it also
> gives it a slightly higher ease of use score
> although KO requires counting an add'l
> card??)
The difference between KO and Hi-lo shown in charts such as qfit and bjmath.com is not significant. Also, bjmath notes that it is necessary to use a true count conversion in order to arrive at these numbers. KO is normally used in running count mode.
However, these numbers do not tell the entire story. A more in-depth comparison of KO and Hi-lo can be found in Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack, 2nd Ed. Here the systems are compared under actual game conditions, and we find that in most cases Hi-lo out-performs KO by a tiny margin, and under certain playing conditions KO edges ahead. In no case is the difference significant.
In other words, KO and Hi-lo perform roughly the same. The difference is in ease of use, with KO not requiring a true count conversion. In addition, the KO Preferred system uses a "reduced, rounded matrix," which ties all strategy deviations to one of only three indices. This makes it easy to learn and use, and is a huge boon to those of us who have trouble memorizing large numbers of indices.
Because of this, KO has quickly become the second most popular counting system (behind Hi-lo), despite its just being introduced a few years ago (1997). I used KO with good results before switching to Unbalanced Zen II.
OTOH, there is a wealth of information available on Hi-lo. Some advanced techniques such as shuffle tracking require a knowledge of the true count, making Hi-lo the count of choice for this technique. Most counting teams use Hi-lo.
Bottom line: Either system will get the job done. It is largely a matter of personal preference.
Note: This entire thread would really be more appropriate for the "Blackjack Beginners" page.
> QFIT.com, ranks both the BC and PE of the KO
> count higher than Hi-Lo.
At the top of that page it states "Playing Efficiency (as defined by Griffin) is not relevant to unbalanced systems and is only an estimate." In any case, PE and BC only speak to the effectiveness of card point values. They cannot be used to accurately calculate the value of an entire strategy. For a far better attempt at valuing strategies, see the BJ counting results calculator at the link below. Silver Fox is included.
> are very important cards in the grand scheme
> of things, especially in multi-deck games,
> where a large spread makes betting
> correlation more important than playing
> efficiency.
> The Silver Fox (Ito) count is excellent and
> performs similarly to hi-lo. That said, it
> will underperform slightly in shoe games,
> because its BC is inferior to hi-lo's, while
> its PE is slightly superior. Depending on
> the spread employed and the number of
> indices used, the relative importance of the
> two above-mentioned parameters varies.
I play 2 deck game with 270 index numbers so I'll stick to the Silver Fox with its better PE. I like knowing I'm making the best possible decision every hand I play. If you are going to play shoe games without wonging you better have a LOT of money behind you and you better be willing to bet a LOT of money on a hand when the count shoots up. I knew one pro counter who lost thousands of dollars on a trip playing a shoe game and even if such a swing is expected it can be quite demoralizing. How many times have you seen a poster to one of these boards moan about running into the "shoe from hell" and say they lost a bunch of money and they're quitting blackjack? Unless someone has thousands of dollars behind them and an iron stomach I would recommend NOT playing multi-deck shoes (unless wonging into good counts) and instead travel to a location that offers double deck games. It's easy for a book writer to tell someone to bet a ton of money because they have a 1% advantage but quite another matter for him to actually do it himself.
> But, the information has to be accurate.
> Simply reckoning more ranks is NOT a
> guarantee that the count is
> "better."
7s and 9s ARE relevant information, they DO have a slight impact value when removed or added to the deck. Maybe not as important as 5s or 10s but I feel that throwing them out will hurt your decisions. When the dealer has the 4,5,or 6 showing (where the player will be splitting and doubling down more often) I like knowing I have some extra 9s floating around to bust the dealer.
> Don
> It's easy for a book writer to tell someone to
> bet a ton of money because they have a 1%
> advantage but quite another matter for him
> to actually do it himself.
Did you have anyone in particular in mind? :-)
> 7s and 9s ARE relevant information, they DO
> have a slight impact value when removed or
> added to the deck. Maybe not as important as
> 5s or 10s but I feel that throwing them out
> will hurt your decisions. When the dealer
> has the 4,5,or 6 showing (where the player
> will be splitting and doubling down more
> often) I like knowing I have some extra 9s
> floating around to bust the dealer.
Unless you keep a side-count of 7s and 9s, you don't know that by using the Silver Fox. All you know is that you may have a preponderance of cards that are valued +1 or -1, and that 7s and 9s are amongst them. If they are evenly distributed, you may be right; if they aren't, you may be wrong.
In addition, by counting those two ranks as equal to 5s and 10s, you are making mistakes evaluating your advantage, for betting purposes, which doesn't seem to upset you. The two counts offer a tradeoff, and it's perfectly fine that you use the count that you do, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you're doing any better with it than you would with hi-lo.
Don
Silver Fox may gain a bit in playing efficiency, but counting the 9 the same as a 10 value card results in a big hit in insurance correlation, your most important strategy deviation. Doesn't this bother you?
Don't get me wrong, I think SF is a good count.
However, it is incorrect to think that it is better than Hi-lo merely because it counts more cards. For practical purposes, all level one counts perform pretty much the same.
> It's easy for a book writer to tell someone
> to
> Did you have anyone in particular in mind?
> :-)
I didn't mean to take a swipe at anyone. Just pointing out that there is a big difference between a computer playing with an advantage at a 6 deck game and a real person with real emotions making those large bets and going through the huge swings that will occur. 6 deck games were designed by the casino not to make counting "harder" but to create a rollercoaster with a player's bankroll, by forcing the player to bet much more money in those positive counts to make up for the lesser number of situations where the player will have this advantage.
> Unless you keep a side-count of 7s and 9s,
> you don't know that by using the Silver Fox.
> All you know is that you may have a
> preponderance of cards that are valued +1 or
> -1, and that 7s and 9s are amongst them. If
> they are evenly distributed, you may be
> right; if they aren't, you may be wrong.
Card counting is based on the premise that, over the long run, the remainder of the cards in the deck are evenly distributed.
> In addition, by counting those two ranks as
> equal to 5s and 10s, you are making mistakes
> evaluating your advantage, for betting
> purposes, which doesn't seem to upset you.
Regardless of one's betting strategy, after the cards are dealt the priority of the player is to make the best decision possible with what he is dealt.
> The two counts offer a tradeoff, and it's
> perfectly fine that you use the count that
> you do, but don't delude yourself into
> thinking that you're doing any better with
> it than you would with hi-lo.
The card counting system that works for YOU is the one that makes YOU money, is easy for YOU to use, and is comfortable for YOU to use while playing "under fire" in the casino. One can't say one system is "better" than the other for everyone, but the one that is best for any one person is the one they should use.
> Don
> Silver Fox may gain a bit in playing
> efficiency, but counting the 9 the same as a
> 10 value card results in a big hit in
> insurance correlation, your most important
> strategy deviation. Doesn't this bother you?
No, because I feel that over the entire spectrum of decisions that I will do better with my count system, as proven by its higher PE. And, I can still insure a hand when the TC reaches +4.
> Don't get me wrong, I think SF is a good
> count.
> However, it is incorrect to think that it is
> better than Hi-lo merely because it counts
> more cards. For practical purposes, all
> level one counts perform pretty much the
> same.
I chose Silver Fox for it's higher PE because I tend to play double deck games, where the index numbers have more value. Someone who chooses to play multi-deck games may wish to stick to hi-lo. Like I told Don the system one uses is a personal choice of the individual player (based on factors unique to that player), and you are correct to say that one isn't "better" than another.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks