apccounter: strategy comparison

[apccounter]

Hello all,

I have a question for some of you more experienced players. Basically, I have successfully learned and used the Revere Advanced Point Count strategy for several years - though I play only once/twice a year and I usually need a couple weeks of practice before I am up to par. I have read a number of posts and have seen the following general statement made in one form or another a number of times:

Revere's strategy is the most accurate but he overestimated its advantage and the difference between it and the next best strategy (which is much easier to learn) is minimal.

My questions:

1. Is this true?

2. If so, what is the difference in terms of strengths of the strategys (in terms of dollars per hour perhaps)?

3. What is the proposed easier strategy? I seem to recall it is some version of plus-minus but I also seem to recall that there are several versions of plus-minus out there - one of which is in Revere's book.

Basically, I am looking to invest myself in a different strategy (if it is basically gonna give me the same results) that may require less revision each time I go out playing.

Thanks for your advice,
APCcounter

[Dog Hand]

APCcounter,

I'll give it a shot!

I checked Don Schlesinger's excellent Blackjack Attack, 3rd Edition for a comparison of several popular counting systems. According to Table 9.21, page 172, for a 6 deck shoe with 5 deck penetration, S17, DAS, LS, if you play all with a 1-12 spread, RAPC has a SCORE of 60.13, which is edged by Hi-Opt II (61.61) and Advanced Omega II (60.21). On the other hand, if you wong, rather than play all, RAPC's SCORE for a 1-12 spread is 100.39, which is edged by Hi-Opt II (102.97) and Halves (100.89).

As you can see, RAPC compares very favorably with the other systems, so if you're comfortable with it, you'd probably be better off simply sticking with it. Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth everything you've paid for it ;-)

Dog Hand

[SpiderMan]

Hi-Opt2 & Halves seemed like better choices than the RAPC. They're easier.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Hi-Opt2 & Halves seemed like better
> choices than the RAPC. They're easier.

The book clearly mentions that RAPC is never the best performer, no matter what the game, and since it's one of the hardest counts to learn, it wouldn't be a recommendation for someone who hasn't already mastered it. But, in this case, the reader already plays the RAPC, and I can't think of any good reason to change, if he is playing accurately.

Don