Seven: Red 7 backcounting

[Seven]

In "Blackbelt in Blackjack" Arnold Snyder mentions that the Red 7 is a very good count for backcounting due to the low pivot.

He then says that you should look for games near pivot, or half pivot, before entering.

Would it be possible, if there are any Red 7 users out there, to give a little more information on appropriate bet spreads and entry points for this count?

I believe the bet spreads he recommended were much too conservative and did not distinguish between play all and table hopping.

(I have no simulator, but if someone does, I think many Red 7 users would really value the information)

[Fred Renzey]

> In "Blackbelt in Blackjack" Arnold
> Snyder mentions that the Red 7 is a very
> good count for backcounting due to the low
> pivot.

> He then says that you should look for games
> near pivot, or half pivot, before entering.

> Would it be possible, if there are any Red 7
> users out there, to give a little more
> information on appropriate bet spreads and
> entry points for this count?

Reply: In back counting the six deck shoe, when the RC climbs 11 points beyond your starting count, you'll have a TC of just about +1.7 and an advantage of about 0.5%. That's worth coming in with a 3 unit bet.
I recommend using an IRC of "9", and coming in at "20" -- betting 3 units. A "21" RC will always be +2.0 TC at any penetration level. The rest of the bets would go as follows:

RC WAGER

20 3

21 5

22 8

23 10

(NOTE: This is a FAST betting ramp and violates Kelly, but I can no longer feel warm and fuzzy about 1-12 spreads. This standard deviation is just about the same as 1-12 with the gross yield about 8% lower.)

Included below are some handy indices for that structure.

RC HAND PLAY TC(ref)

20 9 vs 2 Dbl +1.8/1.5

20 11 vs A Dbl

20 A/8 v 5 Dbl

20 A/8 v 6 Dbl

21 8 vs 6 Dbl +2.0

21 12 vs 3 Std

24 A/8 v 4 Dbl +2.8/3.5

25 any Ins +3.1/4.0

25 8 vs 5 Dbl

25 9 vs 7 Dbl

25 12 vs 2 Std

27 15 vs 10 Std +3.7/5.0

28 10 vs A Dbl +4.0/5.5

31 16 vs 9 Std +5.3/7.0

And if you're playing all;

PENETRATION COUNT HAND PLAY

0 decks 10 16 vs 10 Std

1 deck 12 Std

2 decks 14 Std

3 decks 16 Std

4 decks 18 Std

0 decks 9 12 vs. 4 Std

1 deck 11 Std

2 decks 13 Std

3 decks 15 Std

4 decks 17 Std

1 deck 6 13 vs. 2 Std

2 decks 9 Std

3 decks 12 Std

4 decks 15 Std

[Syph]

Incidentally, it was a few of your articles on unbalanced counts that convinced me that Red 7 was a viable alternative to Hi Lo.

(These KO guys really should wise up)

(Big grins!)

Again, thank you for the info. I always thought it was a bit of a shame that Arnold Snyder didn`t develop the count a little more.

Best wishes!
Seven

[Fred Renzey]

> Incidentally, it was a few of your articles
> on unbalanced counts that convinced me that
> Red 7 was a viable alternative to Hi Lo.

> (These KO guys really should wise up)

> (Big grins!)

> Again, thank you for the info. I always
> thought it was a bit of a shame that Arnold
> Snyder didn`t develop the count a little
> more.

> Best wishes!
> Seven

Reply: I apologize that the spacing in the charts as they appeared made things pretty unclear. They should have appeared more like:

@"20" RC; Dbl w/9 vs 2; 11 vs. A, A/8 vs. 5 or 6
@"21" RC; dbl w/8 vs 6; std w/12 vs 3
@"24" RC; dbl w/ A/8 vs 4
@"25" RC; dbl w/ 8 vs 5; 9 vs 7; std w/ 12 vs 2; take Ins

etc, etc.

With an RC of "20", your TC might actually be anywhere from +1.5 to +1.8.
With an RC of "21", it will always be +2.0
With an RC of "25", your TC might actually be anywhere from +3.1 to +4.0; etc.

[Syph]

Most of the literature I`ve read has emphasized over and again to proportionately bet your advantage. I understand that an unbalanced count can only approximately estimate your advantage, nonetheless, your betting ramp is pretty fierce and places a max bet long before the (estimated) +5 TC standard.

(Most of the books I`ve read recommend placing a max bet at around a 2% advantage.)

If it`s not too much trouble, could you explain why Mr. Red 7 has no use for a Kelly spread?

(I`ve lead to believe one should not touch, let alone violate, Kelly.)

Cheers!
Syph

[Fred Renzey]

>

> If it`s not too much trouble, could you
> explain why Mr. Red 7 has no use for a Kelly
> spread?

>

> Cheers!
> Syph

Reply: It's not the Red 7 that has led me violate Kelly -- but casino heat. I personally use the Wong Halves and used to spread 1-12, reaching 12 units at +4.5 TC (with an occasional 16 unit bet at +6 TC if I won the last hand and felt no heat). All that eventually led to trouble. So, using a simulator, I revamped my betting ramp to 1-9 (at a much quicker pace), reaching 9 units at +2.5 TC.

I was very careful to keep the hourly standard deviation the same, so that I'd be risking the same overall volatility to my bankroll. The only question was, since I've de-optimized my betting by violating Kelly, how much would this new betting method lower my expectation?

It turned out that my average bet increased by about 9% (due to the quicker ramp), and my expected hourly earn dropped by about 11% (because there were no 10, 12 or 16 unit bets) -- all while experiencing the same standard deviation.

I've taught a number of friends the unbalanced Red 7 Count, the Black Ace Count and the Opti-Count (unbalanced Hi-Opt I counting the black deuces) programming them all to reach a max. bet of 9 or 10 units at around +2.5 TC and incorporating 20 index numbers such as I laid out in a recent post. They're smooth as silk to use and seem to work fine. I've used them all myself just for kicks from time to time. After using Halves (with 80 index numbers) for 25 years, these are like playing in your sleep.

Even the weakest sister (the Opti-Count) however, has an hourly yield (via simulation) only 18% lower than the balanced Halves.

So as always, there's the theoretically optimal way to play -- and there's what you can get away with.

[Syph]

Any warning you would give a kid just about to embark on his Sisyphus World Domination Tour?

(The SWDT is a carefully orchestrated, multi-national, intercontinental, blackjack blitz that will redefine audacity, lucidity, and absurdity in the most existential fashion.)

(Or something like that...)

Cheers!
Syph

(p.s. Thank you again for your detailed responses. They are very much appreciated. My tour begins shortly in Asia.)