Hit the Road Jack: Double correction for point count adjustment

[Hit the Road Jack]

I use the Main-count(Zen) system in multiple deck games because of it's overall power, performance and relative simplicity in that it's a balanced level two system with ace reckoned not requiring a side count or ace adjustment. The BC is said to be .96, PE .63 and the IC (.85?). However it was said that a BC of .99 could be achieved by making an adjustment or correction to the related point values(weights) by incorporating an ace-five side count.

This side count would be kept seperately by counting fives as +1 and aces as -1. You then make an adjustment by adding this value to the main-count before betting for more accuracy.

I have found a simple way to keep this side count using the letters A(ace) and F(five). This system won't keep track of the exact number of cards played but only the relative density by keeping track of the unbalance shall I say.

For example if one ace is played I will count A then if a five is played I will go back to zero, however if another ace is played I will count A-2 meaning two more aces than fives have been played. Of course the scenario would be opposite for Fives.

Using this system will provide more accuracy for betting purposes and possibly furnish pertintent information in certain playing situations such as hitting stiff hands or close plays on doubling. However the problem I face is with the insurance bet. I mean first of all the point values for the insurance count should count tens against non-tens, but the ace is counted as a negative along with the tens in both the main count and also the adjusted count(for betting accuracy).

To remedy this I was considering going backwards in the correction or making an ace adjustment to make the ace a neutral, zero count value. The process won't be perfect because of the limited and incomplete information but if enough aces are played which will make the count go down or lower toward the negative while the density may be high for instance an adjusted count of A-4, I could correct the main-count by adding 4(+1 for every ace) and get a more correct count for insurance. I also consider counting every excess ace as +2 in order to give the ace demonination a net system value of +1 to be counted against the tens weighted as -2.

I should point out that you cannot "correct" for excess fives in the same way as aces because the five is already counted as +2 in the main-count and to do so would overvalue the demonination for insurance purposes.

If you have been able to read and follow along so far, I ask if this makes sense and if it would be not only advantageous but worth while as I use it only in multiple deck in which the insurance wager does not have a large monetary value.

Also if you'll indluge me I would like to say that I read this information to which I have applied my own methods in a book titled "A Book on Casino Blackjack" by C. Tulcea Ionescu published in 1979 if I remember right. But I know that Arnold Synder wrote Blackbelt in Blackjack in 1981 which exposits the Zen count system with more exhaustive index values etc. I have not yet read this classic as I have heard(from Border's Books) that a new edition is due out in October or November later this year. Can any anyone confirm this and give me a little more information on the content of the book.

Your response in the matter would be much appreciated.

HtRJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

For example if one ace is played I will count A then if a five is played I will go back to zero, however if another ace is played I will count A-2 meaning two more aces than fives have been played.

I think you mean one more Ace than Five and I don't understand the us of the letters. Normally you would keep two counts in your head.

To remedy this I was considering going backwards in the correction or making an ace adjustment to make the ace a neutral, zero count value.

I think this is far too complex. .85 is a respectable IC. But that's just my opinion.

The new version of Blackbelt in BJ is scheduled in November according to Amazon. Don't know if that's accurate or what's been added. I would certainly expect Zen will be in it. I don't remember any mention of betting side-counts in the earlier versions. But I think Arnold has used the method himself.

BTW, the unusual method you use for betting side counts is supported by CVData and CV Blackjack.

Serious Blackjack Software

[Parker]

From Blackjack Forum, Vol. IV #3, September 1984:

"In BJF II #3, I reviewed a book by C. Ionescu Tulcea titled A Book on Casino Blackjack (1982). In my review, I mentioned that although Tulcea's counting systems were presented impractically for non-mathematicians, I liked his method of side-counting aces. What he proposed was to keep the ace count as a balanced count, balancing the aces vs. specified low cards, then adjusting the primary running count by adding the two counts together. Tulcea advises using this method with the Zen Count (which he calls the "Main Count"). I would never advise side-counting aces with the Zen Count, which already has a high betting correlation." --Arnold Snyder

To this I would add that the whole concept of the Zen count was to "semi-neutralize" the ace, in order to provide some of the benefit of an ace-neutral count without the necessity of the ace side count. If you're going to side-count aces anyway, it defeats one of the primary purposes of the count - you might as well learn an ace-neutral count such as Hi-Opt II or Advanced Omega II.

I would suggest using CVData to run sims and find out just how much is gained by this sort of thing. You may find that you're expending a lot of mental effort for relatively little return.

I have provided a link below to the complete article from which the above quote was taken.

It's worth noting that both the book and the article were written 20 years ago, before we had tools like CVData and SCORE.

Can Side-Counting Make You a SUPER COUNTER?

[Hit the Road Jack]

> From Blackjack Forum, Vol. IV #3,
> September 1984:

> "In BJF II #3, I reviewed a book by C.
> Ionescu Tulcea titled A Book on Casino
> Blackjack (1982). In my review, I mentioned
> that although Tulcea's counting systems were
> presented impractically for
> non-mathematicians, I liked his method of
> side-counting aces. What he proposed was to
> keep the ace count as a balanced count,
> balancing the aces vs. specified low cards,
> then adjusting the primary running count by
> adding the two counts together. Tulcea
> advises using this method with the Zen Count
> (which he calls the "Main Count").
> I would never advise side-counting aces with
> the Zen Count, which already has a high
> betting correlation." --Arnold Snyder

While I assure you that I am not ignoring the point of the above statement, I ask how I can cut and paste content from one post to another? Norm Wattenberger had written a response to my previous post saying that he did not fully understand how I use letters to keep a side count and the above paragraph provides a good fundamental explanation of the method Tulcea proposes to keep a side count. I basically use the letters to simplfy the method as they serve as a mnemonic device.

> To this I would add that the whole concept
> of the Zen count was to
> "semi-neutralize" the ace, in
> order to provide some of the benefit of an
> ace-neutral count without the necessity of
> the ace side count. If you're going to
> side-count aces anyway, it defeats one of
> the primary purposes of the count - you
> might as well learn an ace-neutral count
> such as Hi-Opt II or Advanced Omega II.

I had considered both AOII and Uston APC but decided not to play them in multiple deck games primarily because of the ace-neutral and side count requirement. I eventually settled on the Zen count because it was ace-reckoned but after play, I find the performance to be lacking or inadequate for my purposes. For this reason I had thought to incorporate a side count(Ace-Five) and I have found it relatively simple and quite effective for certain decisions.

Why did I waste all those words below, it is the simplest count ever created just an Ace-Five count which Ken Uston explains beautifully in Million Dollar Blackjack in his chapater for counting beginners. Only in this case it is used as a secondary count to furnish more information and possible accuracy to a primary counting system.

I don't know how to fully explain the side count while being brief but I guess I'll say that you keep a side count of the number of aces played relative to another specific denomination. It is a balanced count like most "traditional" systems and goes up and down by keeping track of the relative unbalance between the two card demoninations being tracked. It works just like High-Opt how you count "low" cards to Tens disregarding 7s, 8s and 9s "intermediate" values along with the Two and Ace, while in this case you only count Aces against Fives. It is very simple like a binary system, with a minus(-) for the Ace and a plus(+) for the Five. Every time a Five is played you add a plus and every time an Ace is played, you add a minus, completely disregarding all of the other cards. To avoid using two numerical counts I use the letters "A" and "F", "A" to denote an Ace and "F" to denote a Five then using numbers after the letters to express the relative numbers of the card demoninations played. I then recognize that an "A" has a point value of -1 and "F" has a point value of +1. I emphasize that the method does not require that you keep track of the exact number of aces played and the deck level, but only the relative number of aces to another card denomination(the Five). It is for all practical purposes a balanced point count system counting only two card demoninations, in this case the Ace and the Five. This net value is incorporated with the primary count by adding this seperate count value to the primary point count value.

> I would suggest using CVData to run sims and
> find out just how much is gained by this
> sort of thing. You may find that you're
> expending a lot of mental effort for
> relatively little return.

I had certainly thought so and now that you've reciprocated my basic suspicions I don't feel the need to run the sims.

> I have provided a link below to the complete
> article from which the above quote was
> taken.

I did use the link and found the article very interesting and informative. Thank You.

> It's worth noting that both the book and the
> article were written 20 years ago, before we
> had tools like CVData and SCORE.

A very noteworthy point.

Thank you for your comments, I greatly appreciate it. HtRJ

[paranoid android]

> I eventually
> settled on the Zen count because it was
> ace-reckoned but after play, I find the
> performance to be lacking or inadequate for
> my purposes.

If you're saying that after you played with it for a while, you didn't win as much money as you'd like, you are making assumptions on a faulty premise. You almost certainly haven't played enough hands to have statistical significance. Compare SCORE's of various systems for the games that are available to you, either from BJA or sim them yourself with CVDATA or SBA. If I misunderstood what you were saying, ignore this post. ;-)