best count
  • what is the best begginer and pro count? i was thinking of starting with the KISS I,II, and III, and once i got those mastered i was thinking of going for the hi-lo count ( i heard it was the best)
  • imo, try this...

    2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 = +1
    8 = 0
    9, 10, J, Q, K, Ace = -1
  • what is the name of that count?
  • It's from page 84 of Edward Thorp's Book "Beat The Dealer"(1966 revised edition).
  • Silver Fox
  • so what is the best count that there is today?
  • THE MENTOR COUNT! ! ! thats what i think anywayz.............
  • BNC -- When you get to the highest performing, most complex counts, you're splitting hairs between them.

    But first, it depends upon whether you want to keep a separate side-count of Aces. If you do, the highest performer around is the Omega II w/ ace side-count. It goes:
    2 = +1
    3 = +1
    4 = +2
    5 = +2
    6 = +2
    7 = +1
    8 = 0
    9 = -1
    10 = -2
    A = 0 in the main count, but -2 in the side-count. (the side-count gets applied whenever you're close to deviating from basic strategy and the supply of Aces is off-kilter).

    If you don't want to keep any separate side-counts, then the top performer is the Wong Halves Count. It goes:
    2 = +1
    3 = +2
    4 = +2
    5 = +3
    6 = +2
    7 = +1
    8 = 0
    9 = -1
    10 = -2
    A = -2

    A very close second to the Wong Halves is the Mentor Count, and it's a bit simpler because the 5 is only a +2 rather than +3, and the Ace is a -1 rather than a -2. The Halves out performs Mentor by 0.01% in a shoe game. Both outperform Hi/Lo by about 0.06% in the same game -- and all three are balanced counts which require a "true count" conversion.
  • I wonder if, after converting to a true count, you can practice adding and subtracting from the true count (using a smaller and aslo converted count).
    And then further practice adjusting the true when the number or remaining decks change instead of all this * & / ing.
  • One of the great misconceptions about CC is that hi/lo is the end-all/be-all for the player. It in fact is not.

    If you read your books you will see that the "level 1" methods are rather poor for playing single or double deck games. To really hit the home run in 21 one needs to learn a 'level 2" method. These almost always out-score level 1's for short games (as I call them) due to a much better Playing Efficiency, as opposed to Bet Correlation.

    Hi/Lo is around 51% PE, Silver Fox about 54%,vs. OmegaII or Bal. Zen that are 67%. Consider that the best PE one can achieve is 70%. I tend to keep two methods in mind one for shoes and one for the short games.
  • Nickels-I tend to agree with you, but I think if you go cold turkey and learn Renzey's Mentor, you don't need two. The problem with this is if you have used H/L for 30 years it is asking a lot. The tag numbers and the usual (div)conversion methods results in a 2 H/L equal 4 Mentor situation. The fix for this is simple enough. For example: With a mentor count of +9 running with 3 remaining becomes +9/6=1.5 H/L rather than =3 mentor (double the H/L number but at the same time close to the same). This method saves learning all new variations.....You just double the decks remaining.

    But, given these straight forward relationships, you still have not reached the Mentor true count number that gets all the benefits as regards basic variations (4 times H/L...+2H/L=+8 Mentor). Renzey has a "true to deck" method which makes all his variations just a little better and, I think, justifies 80 of them. I also believe this coupled with a better count helps the PE get to 62% (11 points better than H/L).

    I've made all this sound complex, but it is not provided that you go cold turkey and are not set in your ways. The four boats that are close have added 4-6 double deck games in the last year and with good rules. Now what?
  • Although I love the Mentor count, ATM I use the Speed Count.
    It is 75-95% as good as High/Low ( 95% when you can get away w/ a large bet spread because you don't look at all like a counter).

    Example (2 decks): Count starts at 30 (diff. for single, 4 decks 6etc). The dealer deals out all the cards and your count is what? It's 30 because you only count the hands PLAYED, not as they are being dealt, and your not looking/staring at the discard trey to get a true count. You add +1 for every
    2-6 card, when and only when a player is done playing his hand. After every one is done playing their hands you subtract 1 for every hand played (before this step you subtract 1 whenever a player splits) Now you have the speed count!
    While this looks alot like OPP it has a few key changes w/ out which would only leave you w/ a sorry looking edge ( if you can call it that w/ the required LROR for that system ).
    All in all, for ~15% drop in edge, you can have a respectable edge while drinking Vodka + OJ & Flirting w/ cocktail waitresses, all while only using
    0.00000001% of your brainpower!
  • Whenever you use a statistical method to count cards, I think you are putting your hard earned money in a high risk gamble. OPP and Speed Count do just that. The number of trials for Shoe, DD and SD is just too small forthe distribution method to be consistent (Sometimes it will, othertimes no).

    But, something beats nothing and I think Renzey's A/10 is a better bet. Especially if he extends it further into the pack. Doing so would increase the possibility of more variations and exit strategies. When the A/10 tells you there are 8 extra 10's available, you know that for a fact. Not so with OPP & SC. Best I can recall, it was Grifter who figured .4 advantage with A/10 ext'd.
  • Actually A/T is less than that, it's ~0.33%.

    Let me tell you a secret. EVERY edge you use from any system is based on statistics ( :The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data). <-- how was YOUR count created? <br /> And, any time you bet your edge, you are puting your hard earned money at risk in a "gamble" ....we are playing Blackjack! for Gods sake (and mine)!
    The Speed Count + OBS (which differs from BS) was run through a TRILLION hands <---- w/ a BIG ----> T
    and sports an edge of 0.54% or more depending on the rules and betting ramp.
    That is 0.54% w/ out true counts, w/ out sitting at first base, w/ out CAMO, that (if your playing HI/LOW) is going to bring your edge down closer to the Speed Count anyways.
    I'm not trying to be mean, im aggressive by nature......all that I am saying is that when you look at all the factors and compare them w/ normal counting
    it is alot less work for almost the same edge.
  • Card counting, and that is what we are talking about should be based on fact.
    4 minus 2 = 2 is fact and is not a statistic. There will always be a level of uncertainty regarding edge/advantage because the distribution/sequence of cards can not be known, but the indications that point to a possible advantage should be fact.

    My point in this discussion goes like so: A running count of 8 in most systems is a factual account of the ratio of large and small cards that have been seen and counted.

    Some ,so called, simple systems rely on what is an average distribution over time. I simply find the risk involved in such a concept as being too great because of the statistical anomalies that will occur in such a limited sample.
  • Maybe I just fail to see how counting cards the traditional way is any more factual when there are unknown high and low cards cut from the deck.

    Lets replace your equation, 4 - 2 = 2 w/ (starting count) - 2highcards = 2lesshighcards. does 2 less high cards mean that there are more low cards left in the deck (playable deck)?
    And when I'm playing heads up w/ the dealer and dont see 2-6 and my count drops by 2 does that mean there are less high cards than low cards in the playable deck?
    So your count (whichever you use) is "guessing" the compostion of the remaining deck?
    And the Speed Count is "guessing" the compostion of the remaining deck?

    But your counting method is more accurate because it knows which cards are in the deck(s) that will not be dealt this shoe?

    Not so, all your count does is tell you when to make index plays and increase your bets (suprisingly, that is when the count is positive---> which through trillions of hands is when the Speed Count crosses over from 30 to 31)
  • No Prob. Ray. Last year I PM'ed Grifter with a rather advanced Question. What I had found was that there is an indication that weakening the value of an Ace to less that that of a face-Card showed some better stats (PE, BC and Ins). My direct Query was a speculation that the original valuation of an Ace might not account for the Ace as 1 instead of 11, and perhaps Braun used zero for the 1 value of an Ace. The few methods with this unusual trait are quite good. I actually simmed the count without knowing Fred or anyone was doing the same, and a check of the indicies presented in both CV Data and BJ678 showed none with this exact index. Hats off to Fred. THe stats are 97%, 62%, and 81% for BC, PE, and Ins., a marked improvement for 1-2 decks.

    Sigh, at least I still have the Nickel and Dime Method under wraps.
  • Mighty Joe said:

    The Speed Count + OBS (which differs from BS) was run through a TRILLION hands <---- w/ a BIG ----> T
    and sports an edge of 0.54% or more depending on the rules and betting ramp.


    The author has been told several times about the flaws in his sims. His software cannot calculate SCORE and incorrectly incorporates risk. OPP has about 1/3rd the SCORE of KO. Speed Count has less than one-half the SCORE of HiLo. The advertisements grossly exagerate the results.
  • Mighty Joe said:
    What count does the Blackjack instatute use?

    http://www.blackjackinstitute.com/store/content_item.php?c=51&i=10


    MIT Mike and his teammates use HiLo with their own set of CE indexes (same as RA indexes.) They did provide me with their indexes and I did sim them for many situations. Yes, They do produce higher SCOREs. Of course they are more difficult. One always has to measure difficulty against expectation.

Howdy, Stranger!

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