A/10 Counting rules ?
  • Hello everybody,
    I known that A/10 Front counting strategy is well explained in "Black jack bluebook II" , right ?

    Is anybody so kind to explain me in a few words what are the rules behind this counting method ?

    do you hint anyway to buy this book ? I have "KO blackjack" and i am trying its counting system, but i would like to known a pletora of all the best/"no too difficult" counting systems ;)

    Thank you
  • You must get the book. The Ace/10 Front Count information is too much to explain here. Besides, there is much more valuable material you will obtain from reading the book.
  • Bivotar -- In a nutshell, the A/10 Front Count is the absolute simplest, but also the most marginal winning card counting system out there. It was designed to give the casual, recreational player an outright edge. It's not a plus/minus sytem, but something much simpler. It's not nearly as potent as KO, but perhaps four times easier to learn and use. In simulations where KO had a player advantage of 0.68%, the A/10 Front Count's advantage was 0.25%.

    Designed for the six deck shoe, you simply add together all the 10's-thru-Aces that come out in the first 2 decks of the shoe, then stop counting altogether and bet the remainder of the shoe according to how many Ace/10's you saw in those first 2 decks. That's why it's called a "front count". Beyond the first two decks, you just play and don't count. You tell when 2 decks have been dealt by looking at the discard tray. Your 2 deck front count will have you either sticking to a 1 unit bet the rest of the way, increasing your bet to 4 or 6 units the rest of the way, or leaving the table in search of greener pastures. It is an honest-to-goodness "recreational" card counting system.

    If desired, the performance of the A/10 Front Count can be increased substantially by doing two additional things. The first would be to add two additional, deeper checkpoints in the shoe -- at the 3 and 4 deck marks of the discard tray. Ace/10 inventory taken at those points may have you either cutting back from multiple to single unit bets, or doing the reverse. This improves the player advantage to around 0.40%. Increasing the betting spread to that of most other counting systems (1-to-10 units) will increse the net gain significantly further, but I don't have data to show how much.

    The book contains detailed information on just what counts are needed to bet multiple units or leave the table, including those two deeper checkpoints. It also provides info as to when to play certain hands differently from basic strategy, as well as when to take Insurance. Also provided are bankroll recommendations and average earning expectations.

    In the book as well, and a peer system to KO is the unbalanced KISS Count. It is an upgradable product, starting with the KISS I -- quite a bit easier than KO and with a player advantage of 0.48%. With it you count 3.5 low ranks of cards against 3 ranks of high cards. Next comes KISS II, which adds one extra low card and one extra high card to it's basic structure, along with 21 individual hand index plays. That increases the player advantage to 0.64%. Then comes the KISS III which several successful players now use. It adds still another low card and high card to its structure while bringing the player advantage to 0.70%. KISS III can be further refined with "true fudging" and "half point counting" to bring its player advantage to 0.74-0.75%, which eclipses the benchmark Hi/Lo Count of 0.72%. All fine details of the KISS Counts are thoroughly illustrated in the book.
  • bivotar,
    There's no one better to respond to your question than the author himself!
    You have heard from THE MAN. I still urge you to read the entire book. It has become MY resource book on blackjack.
  • Renzey said:
    Bivotar -- In a nutshell, the A/10 Front Count is the absolute simplest, but also the most marginal winning card counting system out there.




    Thank you very much Renzey, you given to me the right appetite :)
  • "the A/10 Front Count is the absolute simplest" Renzey

    I would like to hear your opinion of the "Speed Count." (Scoblete) I would like to hear Fred's opinion and not the ass kissers in the forum. Fred, please don't misinterpet what I'm saying. I know you make good money selling your book(s) but an honest opinion would be appreciated. Personally, I believe the Speed Count System has some merit to it, but it is constantly having a dime layed on it in this and other forums. Why? No question in my mind it is better to use than no system at all.

    Thanks, Jim
  • Jimpenn -- I am not qualified to give a totally accurate rating of the Speed Count, but I will say that it is a cute, workable concept. I have the book and have pondered the systems inner workings. I have also dealt out hands while keeping the Speed Count, then stopped to check its count against the Hi/Lo for running count accuracy at various intervals.

    To do this, first you need to understand that the Speed Count keeps accurate track of the 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s and 6s, then "infers" the number of 7s, 8s, 9s, 10s, Jacks, Queens Kings and Aces that came out by how many hands were dealt. Thus, the 2s thru 6s count as +1 while by deductive inference, the 7s thru Aces count as -.625. Therefore, where you would have a Speed Count of +8, you should have a Hi/Lo running count of +13. The Speed Count then goes ahead and makes all its bets based upon its running count with no true count conversion. Yet, if I have judged it correctly, it is a balanced count concept with a tendency to remain even -- not unbalanced with an upward drift as it says in the book. I believe it is an inferential balanced count played by its running count.

    I think this method is more error prone with fewer decks since I have noticed that in the first few rounds there can be a significant discrepency between the Speed Count and its theoretically equivalent Hi/Lo running count. However, as the rounds pile up, the two tend to come quite close together. With one or two decks however, a few rounds may be all you get -- and with the shoe, you generallly need a good number of rounds to find a positive situation anyway. So I'm thinking that the Speed count is best suited to the shoe.

    Now with regard to the Speed Count's playing strategy. You never change the way you play any hands -- ever. Instead, you play most of your hands as if the true count were +2 -- all the time. You always stand with 16 vs 10 and with 12 vs 3, and always double down with 8 vs 6, etc.

    So in the Speed Count, what do we have? As I see it, we have an inferential balanced count which is bet by the running count and the hands are played by a fixed, modestly positive basic strategy. How much weaker will that be than the benchmark Hi/Lo?

    I don't have software to test the Speed Count per se, but I did run
    a couple of 600 million hand sims with the Hi/lo -- first playing the Illust. 18 with true count conversion, then playing the Hi/Lo strictly by the running count using Speed Count's "Optimized Basic Strategy" as it's called. I was surprised to see that the EV dropped from +0.72% to only +0.60%. But that was using Hi/Lo.

    I wondered how much additional loss there would be by using Speed Count's inferential counting parameters, and the best I could do was run another 600 million hands counting the 2s thru 6s as +1 and all others as -.625. This would be somewhat superior to the actual Speed Count since it's a full-fledged plus/minus balanced system with an 85% betting correlation. Its EV turned out to be +0.47%. The Speed Count's actual performance would have to be something lower than this, and I suspect that in the shoe game the additional loss would be quite small. I'll only guess that its actual EV would be maybe +0.40% to +0.45%.

    One last comment. I believe the Speed Count would've worked better counting the 10's thru Aces and letting the rest of the cards float, rather than vise-versa. The main reason is the Speed Count's atrocious Insurance correlation. It just bunches all the 10s in with the 7s, 8,s, 9s and Aces.

    In summary though, I think the Speed Count definitely has its niche. It is an advantage sytem that is easy to play, and it brings advantage blackjack within the reach of more casual players.
  • Fred, thanks for your summary and opinion. I don't think SC comes close to the HiLo System. Using HiLo correctly will increase the player's advantage significantly. I also believe that the system is close, if not even to the A/10 Count. In short, I believe a recreational blackjack player can reduce his disadvantage to .25% but it's not for the player who is a "bedpost" at the local Redskin casino. I have used it approximately 150 times with CVBJ software and found a playable game after two decks approximately 20% if the time.

    Scoblete is no Renzey when writing about blackjack. I have read all of your books and will continue. Again, thanks and as I said many times BlackJack Bluebook II should be in everyone's library.

    Enjoy you day Fred and continued success.

    Jim
  • Renzey said:


    Designed for the six deck shoe, you simply add together all the 10's-thru-Aces that come out in the first 2 decks of the shoe, then stop counting altogether and bet the remainder of the shoe according to how many Ace/10's you saw in those first 2 decks. That's why it's called a "front count". Beyond the first two decks, you just play and don't count. You tell when 2 decks have been dealt by looking at the discard tray. Your 2 deck front count will have you either sticking to a 1 unit bet the rest of the way, increasing your bet to 4 or 6 units the rest of the way, or leaving the table in search of greener pastures. It is an honest-to-goodness "recreational" card counting system.



    Renzey,
    As just a recreational player I would like you to expand on this. What count determinds the differance between the 1 unit bet, or the 4 to 6 unit bet? I play a strick BS and only get to Reno 2 or 3 times a year.
    Thank you,
    Earp
  • Earp -- With a six deck shoe, any two deck front count of '36' or under is worth betting multiple units (it would be just about equal to a Hi/Lo true count of +1.6, and not by inference -- but by deducing the actual number of remaining 2s thru 9s by subtracting the front count from 104 cards).

    To keep the system in the "casual" class, the book recommends just a 4 unit bet at '36' and a 6 unit bet at '35' or less -- and nothing beyond. But if you want the Ace/10 Count to compete with other full blown systems, you should spread from 1-to-10, and continue to keep the tally going thru the first four decks.

    Anyway, where just the two deck front count is concerned, you could bet 2 units at '37'; 4 at '36'; 6 at '35'; 8 at '34' and 10 at '32'. These would be true counts of +1.2, +1.6, +2.0, +2.4 and +3.2 respectively.

    A 10 page chapter in the book explains all this in much greater detail.
  • Mr. Renzey,

    When using the A/10 Front Count, is my success affected by the number of players at my table? Are the expected results the same playing heads up with the dealer as with a full table?
  • chexplay said:
    Mr. Renzey,

    When using the A/10 Front Count, is my success affected by the number of players at my table? Are the expected results the same playing heads up with the dealer as with a full table?



    Your hourly win rate is simply your EV * number_of_hands_played. With more players at the table, the number of hands per hour drops for you (although the casino sees more total hands per hour played).

    That's why we prefer to play heads-up. more hands per hour is good for us...

    Some think that more players hurt for a different reason, in that they eat good cards when the count rises. But they also eat bad cards in negative counts. But they kill the hands per hour for a single player.
  • I had just written a long reply to the A/10 -- Speed Count concepts but for some reason it did not get posted. I may not of hit the right button. Normally I'm very good at pushing buttons, but sh+t happens every so often. Just may be good that it didn't get posted because some fragile ego's could have been hurt.

    Two quick points...Why can't the A/10 concept be used in an 8D game? In addition, I think the A/10 system becomes stronger at the additional evaluation periods. I would much rather have a positive number after four decks dealt then after two...

    I'm tired, but I intend to post earlier comment later today.

    In closing, the way old school blackjack players are now playing poker tells me professional blackjack players will be walking against the wind for years to come. Considering the software in use today and being developed as we speak for pit management a new system altering the standard use of BS may just be what the doctor ordered. Yes, and was not aware that the SC concept said always stand on 16 verses 10, DD 8 verses 6, etc. I thought this was only played when the pivot point had been reached. Learn something every day.
  • Jimpenn -- See the "A/10 for 8 deck" thread for its application. If you wanted to apply the A/10 Front Count in the 8 deck game at the 2 dealt decks mark, you'd need a front count of '34' or less to bet multiple units, and that will occur pretty seldom. That's the reason for waiting 'till 2.5 decks have been dealt to take inventory.

Howdy, Stranger!

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