Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: george: revere apc ot rpc

  1. #1
    george
    Guest

    george: revere apc ot rpc

    this message for either don or whoever may know. Is there a better way to incorporate the ace into the revere apc or the omega 2 without keeping a side count? Also it appears that the rpc has a better betting corolation. Which count does don suggest for a 2 deck game? Are there any counters around the detroit metro area that would like to send me an e-mail?

    Which revere count does don s. use? Thanks for your input.

  2. #2
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: revere apc ot rpc


    I assume you mean '73 RAPC. A way of incorporating the Ace without an Ace SC, I suppose, would be to use '71 RAPC. But then, RPC is much simpler and about as good. I'm not a fan of RAPC as AOII is as good and by far simpler.

    Don uses RPC. An excellent count.

    > this message for either don or whoever may
    > know. Is there a better way to incorporate
    > the ace into the revere apc or the omega 2
    > without keeping a side count? Also it
    > appears that the rpc has a better betting
    > corolation. Which count does don suggest for
    > a 2 deck game? Are there any counters around
    > the detroit metro area that would like to
    > send me an e-mail?

    > Which revere count does don s. use? Thanks
    > for your input.




  3. #3
    Dancer
    Guest

    Dancer: Side counts

    > this message for either don or whoever may
    > know. Is there a better way to incorporate
    > the ace into the revere apc or the omega 2
    > without keeping a side count? Also it
    > appears that the rpc has a better betting
    > corolation. Which count does don suggest for
    > a 2 deck game? Are there any counters around
    > the detroit metro area that would like to
    > send me an e-mail?

    > Which revere count does don s. use? Thanks
    > for your input.

    I'm not Don, but I may be able to help. Ace-neutral counts (like the RAPC and AOII) increase their PE (also their IC) by ignoring the aces. Without the ace side count, however, their BC suffers greatly.

    BC for AOII -- with ace side count = 98.9%
    BC for AOII -- no ace side count = 91.7% (Don't do this)

    BC for RPC = 98.4%

    When the ace is incorporated into the count (ace-reckoned), the BC increases at the expense of the PE and IC. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though, since BC contributes far more to your winrate in today's games. PE becomes more significant in deeply-dealt pitch games, but you won't find too many (if any) of those around these days.

    Unfortunately, there's no middle ground when it comes to counting aces. Ace-reckoned counts give you 90% - 95% of the winrate and are far, far easier to play. Ace-neutral counts maximize your winrate, but be prepared for lots of practice and significantly more work at the tables. Don't forget, the hardest part of counting is getting away with it. If you're so busy at the table that you can't lay down your act in a convincing manner, it doesn't matter how powerful your system is.

    As for recommendations, you might want to pick up a copy of Don's Blackjack Attack. He published an extensive study comparing the most popular counts and outlining their respective pros and cons.

    BTW, the aforementioned study shows that the RAPC should be avoided.

    According to his book, Don uses the RPC.

    Best of cards...

  4. #4
    Fred Renzey
    Guest

    Fred Renzey: Re: revere apc ot rpc

    > this message for either don or whoever may
    > know. Is there a better way to incorporate
    > the ace into the revere apc or the omega 2
    > without keeping a side count?

    snip> An excellent practical way to blend in the Ace with the main body of a count system is to assign it a value which is less than that of the 10's.

    Arnold Snyder's "Zen Count" is a good example, counting the 10's as -2 and the Aces as
    -1. For the double deck and shoe games, my own simulations have indicated that about the highest performing level two system without any side counts is the "Mentor Count" (I don't believe Norm has tested that one). It has a 97% betting correlation with a 62% playing efficiency and is structured as follows:

    2 = +1
    3 = +2
    4 = +2
    5 = +2
    6 = +2
    7 = +1
    8 = 0
    9 = -1
    10= -2
    A = -1

    Those same simulations show that you could pick up about another 0.02% in EV by going to the Mentor III. It touts a BC of 98% with a PE of 61.5% and goes like this:

    2 = +2
    3 = +2
    4 = +3
    5 = +3
    6 = +3
    7 = +2
    8 = 0
    9 = -1
    10= -3
    A = -2

  5. #5
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Ranking

    > snip> An excellent practical way to blend
    > in the Ace with the main body of a count
    > system is to assign it a value which is less
    > than that of the 10's.

    > Arnold Snyder's "Zen Count" is a
    > good example, counting the 10's as -2 and
    > the Aces as
    > -1. For the double deck and shoe games, my
    > own simulations have indicated that about
    > the highest performing level two system
    > without any side counts is the "Mentor
    > Count" (I don't believe Norm has tested
    > that one). It has a 97% betting correlation
    > with a 62% playing efficiency and is
    > structured as follows:

    > 2 = +1
    > 3 = +2
    > 4 = +2
    > 5 = +2
    > 6 = +2
    > 7 = +1
    > 8 = 0
    > 9 = -1
    > 10= -2
    > A = -1

    > Those same simulations show that you could
    > pick up about another 0.02% in EV by going
    > to the Mentor III. It touts a BC of 98% with
    > a PE of 61.5% and goes like this:

    > 2 = +2
    > 3 = +2
    > 4 = +3
    > 5 = +3
    > 6 = +3
    > 7 = +2
    > 8 = 0
    > 9 = -1
    > 10= -3
    > A = -2

    Fred,

    Count systems shouldn't be evaluated by PE and/or BE. You need to calculate the SCORE and believe me that a system that assigns "-1" to the nines is inferior to one that assigns "0" to the same cards. In terms of PE the "-1" hurts Insurance and that makes the SCORE to goes down.

    Mentor count is UBZII plus the nine but played in TC mode. Now, in shoe games ZEN performs better than UBZII true counted and even better than Halves, which is a three-level count. Actually, ZEN is the best count system for shoes if you don't want to side-count any card.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  6. #6
    Brick
    Guest

    Brick: Re: Ranking

    I'm thinking about making improvements of hi-lo while keeping the count at one level and not using a side count. I've considered counting red nines as -1 and red sevens as +1. However I've never heard or read about anyone who has thought about using this method. What's your opinion,
    thanks.

    Brick

    > Fred,

    > Count systems shouldn't be evaluated by PE
    > and/or BE. You need to calculate the SCORE
    > and believe me that a system that assigns
    > "-1" to the nines is inferior to
    > one that assigns "0" to the same
    > cards. In terms of PE the "-1"
    > hurts Insurance and that makes the SCORE to
    > goes down.

    > Mentor count is UBZII plus the nine but
    > played in TC mode. Now, in shoe games ZEN
    > performs better than UBZII true counted and
    > even better than Halves, which is a
    > three-level count. Actually, ZEN is the best
    > count system for shoes if you don't want to
    > side-count any card.

    > Sincerely,
    > Cacarulo

  7. #7
    Stick-in the mud.
    Guest

    Stick-in the mud.: Re: revere apc ot rpc

    > snip> An excellent practical way to blend
    > in the Ace with the main body of a count
    > system is to assign it a value which is less
    > than that of the 10's.

    > Arnold Snyder's "Zen Count" is a
    > good example, counting the 10's as -2 and
    > the Aces as
    > -1. For the double deck and shoe games, my
    > own simulations have indicated that about
    > the highest performing level two system
    > without any side counts is the "Mentor
    > Count" (I don't believe Norm has tested
    > that one). It has a 97% betting correlation
    > with a 62% playing efficiency and is
    > structured as follows:

    > 2 = +1
    > 3 = +2
    > 4 = +2
    > 5 = +2
    > 6 = +2
    > 7 = +1
    > 8 = 0
    > 9 = -1
    > 10= -2
    > A = -1

    > Those same simulations show that you could
    > pick up about another 0.02% in EV by going
    > to the Mentor III. It touts a BC of 98% with
    > a PE of 61.5% and goes like this:

    > 2 = +2
    > 3 = +2
    > 4 = +3
    > 5 = +3
    > 6 = +3
    > 7 = +2
    > 8 = 0
    > 9 = -1
    > 10= -3
    > A = -2
    The mentor count was called the precision count or the C-K count (Clark Cant and the late Paul Keen)circa 1982.

  8. #8
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Ranking

    > I'm thinking about making improvements of
    > hi-lo while keeping the count at one level
    > and not using a side count. I've considered
    > counting red nines as -1 and red sevens as
    > +1. However I've never heard or read about
    > anyone who has thought about using this
    > method. What's your opinion,
    > thanks.

    Here a true counted Red7 would be better for the same reasons I gave to Fred. Counting the red nine as "-1" hurts the most important play (insurance). Nines should be valued zero.
    A better improvement to Hi-Lo would be to use TKO.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  9. #9
    Mister M
    Guest

    Mister M: Re: revere apc ot rpc

    Here is my advice if you are thinking of using the Revere14 apc. Don't do it!
    I used it for over 100 hours before discarding to to error and extreme fatigue.

    It is not more powerful the HI-OPT II or AOII and these are far easier to use.

    The AOII will outperform the ZEN in DD ONLY if you aere able to play at the same speed and make NO errors.

    Adding another unit to your spread will more than compensate for using an ace reckoned count.

    I switched from AOII to the ZEN mainly for tracking purposes and it reaaly is very easy to master after a few hours on CVBJ.

    JMHO


  10. #10
    Fred Renzey
    Guest

    Fred Renzey: Re: Ranking

    > In shoe games ZEN performs better than UBZII true counted and even better than Halves, which is a three-level count.
    > Sincerely,
    > Cacarulo

    snip> In billions of simulated hands, I have been unable to get any level two system (no side counts) to outperform the Halves in a shoe game. The Mentor and Zen ran close seconds, falling short by .01% or .02% in EV using a 1-to-10 spread. I'm puzzled as to why this differs from your statements.

    Quizzically,

    Fred Renzey

  11. #11
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Ranking

    > snip> In billions of simulated hands, I
    > have been unable to get any level two system
    > (no side counts) to outperform the Halves in
    > a shoe game. The Mentor and Zen ran close
    > seconds, falling short by .01% or .02% in EV
    > using a 1-to-10 spread. I'm puzzled as to
    > why this differs from your statements.

    The problem is that you're comparing EVs and not SCOREs. Below are the SCOREs of three systems in which ZEN is clearly superior than HALVES.

    Game Analyzed: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,heads up,5000 million rounds played,Play-All,Catch-22 floored indices.

     
    1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
    Zen 11.40 28.97 38.60 44.51 48.49
    UBZII(T) 11.38 28.87 38.47 44.35 48.31
    Halves 11.16 28.69 38.33 44.25 48.27


    Let's take a 1-12 spread for example. What are the EVs of these three counts?

    ZEN      = 2.841 u/h (100 rounds per hour) 
    UBZII(T) = 2.846 u/h
    HALVES = 2.881 u/h


    So, if you go by the EV then HALVES is better but EV alone doesn't mean nothing. We need to know the SD and thus the SCORE. Here are the SDs:

    ZEN      = 45.729 u?/h (100 rounds per hour) 
    UBZII(T) = 45.882 u?/h
    HALVES = 46.530 u?/h


    Hope this helps.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.