Calling all counters!
  • I'm curious as to what counting systems people here use and what your success with it (or lack there of) has been.
  • Leon- I play H/L, but I don't think it matters which sys you settle on.
    Level one and two have a betting eff. between 96-98, with H/L, Red7,
    KO and Mentor at 97. The playing eff runs between 51 and 67, but be
    aware that the higher playing systems usually give up something for
    betting. If you play mostly shoes,where playing eff doesn't get you that
    much.....take you choice....what is best for you...etc,etc

    One other thing to consider is the question of how many variations does
    a system have and must you play all allowable variations in-order to get
    the max benefit in playing eff. I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect the answer is YES.

    Cheers
  • I use Red7 already. I just wanted to start a thread where anyone who is a regular player could discuss their success with their particular system.
  • The other part of your question: I,ve never had what I'd call a losing yr.
    Up to the time casinos went local I was like everyone else, I'd play in LV
    whenever business trips, technology shows and vacations would allow.

    2003 was one of my best years ever and it got so I was going to the casino expecting to win and did for the most part. 2004 is/has not been
    anything like that so far. Jan and Feb were not good and I've spent most
    of the time to date in recovery mode. One could say I'm starting a new
    yr with January figures.
  • Ray said:
    2003 was one of my best years ever and it got so I was going to the casino expecting to win and did for the most part. 2004 is/has not been
    anything like that so far.


    I've always found that a positive attitude, going in, is an absolute must. Anything else will usually be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not always easy to do, but keeping that winner game face on at all times will keep you having fun.

    (sorry, went way off topic here, huh?)
  • I play A5 a risk based system that looks like a count system. Since the game here is S17, this a better alternative to Basic. Over the course of the individual years played, I've had 5 losing years early on... all less than $2000 each. 1992 made up for all that. In the other 18 years, I've won an average of $2500. This year is on course for less than average. I've had 3 bad losses, and only 1 nice win. I scrounged up $200 on Sat. playin ALL day (10AM to 9PM with an hour for dinner). So far up $900 including Sat. at the half-way point.
  • Hey guys/gals. Just had a few questions about the effectiveness of a counting system I am looking into using. I'm not sure if there is a formal name for this count system, but here's how it works: Since we know there are 16 ten value cards and 4 Aces in one deck, the total number of these high valued cards/per deck is therefore 20. So the method works as follows: Every time you observe a 10 or an Ace being played, you count up 1. If in a 6 deck shute, after 2 decks have been played, if you have counted to 19(you know that 19 Ace or 10 value cards have been played). Since 2 decks have been played, we know that there should've(on avg) been a count of 2*20=40. We then substract 40-19 = +21(ie there is a surplus of 21 ace or 10 value cards). Then to calculate a relative count, we divide 21 by the amount of decks remaining = 21/(4)=+5.25. Therefore, we bet approx 5 times the normal betting unit. Any insight into the effectiviness of this counting method would be appreciated. I know it eliminates the need to assign netural and negative values to particular cards, allowing the counter to just concentrate on 10 and Ace value cards, but is it severely flawed??

    Thanks.
  • What you're describing is pretty much the same as Fred Renzey's Ace/Ten Front Count, except for the division part. He recommends counting the number of aces and tens that are dealt in the first two decks. If the number is less than 36, bet bigger the rest of the way. It's supposed to be an easy introduction to counting.

    As far as your method, it will give you an edge of basic strategy players but it doesn't sound much easier than a level 1 count.
  • Thanks LeonShuffle for your response. Yes, I know that Fred Renzey's version of this count says to measure the count after two decks have been played, but wouldn't what I am describing be the next logical extension to it. i.e. Just keep a continuous count(not only after two decks) and divide by decks remaining to get a real idea of how good the remaining shue is. This way you have more of an idea of how much bigger to bet, rather than just bet bigger.
  • byplaya- If you add the "9" to all A's and 10", guess what that gives you!
    Remember the "8" don't count, so by counting the 9,10's,A you effectively
    counted the 2-7 and have what is a level one balanced counting system
    the cheap way. Your check points for "truing" are: 12,24,36,48,60,72,etc.
    Example: a count of 40 with 2 decks gone and four remaning is = to +1
    true.(48-44=4/4=+1) ......How do you like those apples? The advantage
    to this concept is the learning period is short. You count in the same way
    as second grade, backcount is a snap and you can use all level one B/S
    variations(like the 43 I use with H/L).
  • Thanks Ray for your help. Couple of questions about your example though. After 2 decks gone, with a count of 40, wouldnt the calculation be: (48-40)/4=+2? Also, you mention that check points for truing should be at 12,24,36,48,etc. Is this because these denominations are easy check points to calculate with? Thanks
  • Yes....I'm still asleep....As you have observed anything under or over
    the check points is the RC.

    You can get very fast with this method in days and it's easy to remember
    when everything is by the "dozen".

    Some have trouble with deck est. I can tell you a story that may make this task much easier.
  • Wait. I'm confused. You said anything over or under your check points in the Running count? How is this possible? By check point, do you mean number of total cards played? If this was the case, if the 9,10,J,Q,K,A count was 40 and 96 cards had been played(checkpoint), the Running count would be 56, which I am sure its not. We know after 96 cards that the avg 9 to Ace count should be (24/52)*96=~44. Thefore, 44 would be used in your calculation after a checkpoint of 96. ie 44-40=+4 would be the correct calculation for Running Count in this case. The division would to obtain true count would seem to be more difficult to obtain the true count since now NOT exactly 2 decks have been played(actually less than 2 decks with the checkpoints you specify).

    Wouldn't you still have to have check points at the 1/2,1,3/2,2,5/2 points? The reason is because after say 2 decks have been played
    (104 total cards) and youur 9-Ace count was 40, you know the 9 to Ace count should be on avg 48. Therefore, you could then use: (48-40)/4=+2, making the calculation for true count easier.

    Also, yes, please tell me the story about deck estimation. Thanks again.
  • Ok, check points are directly related to number of cards/decks played.
    At 1/2 deck a count of 12=a neutral deck because in a full deck there
    are (24) 9,10,J,Q,K,A.......thats 4 x 6=24. All the check points are neutral
    counts for so many decks/cards. 12=1/2 deck,24= 1 deck, 36=1,1/2 decks, 48=2 decks, etc(this is the same logic as the A/10, but we have
    different check points because you are counting one more card; the nine.

    Example: after 3 decks are in the tray, a neutral deck would be a count
    of 72(3 x 24=72), but suppose our count was 66; then 72 less 66 =RC6
    So, with 3 decks remaining: RC6/3=+2 true.

    Now then, you ask your self what is the practical changes that I can make
    to my bet spread without being shown the door. Now days, not much, so
    half deck is a practical check point. If you play single or double deck
    you may want to consider: 6,12,18,24,30,36. Do you really want to do
    that?

    When I was a young,single eng. student I worked with one side of my family in the building bus. One sees a lot of plywood in that business and
    so did I, but I gave it no attention whatever. Many years later, if I walk
    thru a building supply, I know every size of plywood by sight and this same learning method applies to deck est. If you are exposed to the various deck configurations, even in a casual way, your brain will do
    its thing. Use hard back books (they stand-up) and make yourself sequential discard trays; 1/2,1,1&1/2,2,etc Put the thing next to your
    computer,desk or any other place where you spend a lot of time.
  • Hey guys. If one was using the high low count system(ie +1 for 10,J,Q,K,A, -1 for 2,3,4,5,6 and 7,8,9 as neutral) and after 1 deck had been played, all cards played(52) happened to be all 7s,8s,and 9s, the count would obvoiusly be 0. But in this situation, wouldn't there be a definite advantage to the player since there would be a surplus of 20 high cards(10,J,Q,K,A) since none of them had been played in the first 52? Or is this scenario of obtaining 52 neutral cards after 1 deck in a manner such as this considered so improbable that its not a concern for the High Low count system?

    Thanks
  • Bjplaya - But in this situation, wouldn't there be a definite advantage to the player since there would be a surplus of 20 high cards(10,J,Q,K,A) since none of them had been played in the first 52? .......I believe you overlooked that fact that none of the low cards would have been played either, so there is no surplus......count would still be Zero.
  • Yes, I realize that none of the low cards have been played and the count remains at 0, but wouldn't there still be an advantage to the player since after 52 cards there shouldve been 20 high cards and none had been played. This would indicate a greater opportunity for blackjacks, more pfofitable double downs, and insurance bets
  • Another thought...
    the count would be zero but the player will have definitely gained an advantage from the beginning of the shoe even though the Hi-Lo count doesn't reflect it. This is because a seven is more valuable to the dealer than a nine is to the player (eight is neutral). So assuming an equal number of 7's and 9's had been played, the dealer has lost more of his advantage than the player has.
  • So in this case with an equal number of 7s and 9s played, you indicate the player would have an advantage. Approximately, what advantage would this be. Would it only be slight even though no 10 value or Ace cards have been dealt after 52 cards?

    Thanks
  • Technically you are right on, GH21, but the gain would not be substantial. Say 16 sevens and 16 nines had been played. This would be approximately the same as removing 4 fours; therefore, with five decks remaining, your TC would only be +0.8.

    Grifter
  • So I figure that because 52 cards have been dealt, and all 52 were either a 7, 8, or 9, you're playing with 6 decks. That means there are 22 more in the 5 decks remaining. For the moment lets say the odd card is an 8. (3x17=51, the leftover 1 card is an 8 to balance the shoe). Eventhough the 7's and 9's count ZERO in +/-, they actually have a value of +0.5 and -0.33, based upon the +/- count itself. Therefore, one can surmise that the "real" running count is about +3. { 17*(0.5-0.33) } The true count works out to +3/5 or +0.6. Some would call that a +1 situation. Almost all of us still call it a ZERO condition.
  • Deleted post.
  • OK - for some reason I kept thinking there's three decks left but its actually five, so my numbers (and thoughts) were a little skewed and over-estimated the gain for the player.

    It's true that the player is in better position now than he was off the top of the shoe because the house advantage has been trimmed down to virtually nothing, but he's not playing at an advantage over the house even with all the tens and aces still unplayed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!