1BB
- In general, using a level 2 counting system is more accurate than a level 1 system but more error prone. The advantage is approx. 5-10% and you will experience a slightly lower standard deviation because your advantage is more accurate at each true count.
- For instance, players who use card counting will have the most edge if the deck is filled with large cards – this then means you can bet more. But, vice versa if the deck has more small cards. Best Card Counting Systems. There are many card counting systems involved when using this strategy.
The Omega 2 Count is an intermediate-level card counting system for blackjack. Learn this system only after mastering a simple card counting system. When compared to popular counting systems such as Hi-Lo Count and Knockout Count, the Omega 2 system offers a bit more challenge but also greater profitability.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
TwoFeathersATL
Romes, I think you've been punked. :-)
Is that the same thing as janked
I'm having a hard time keeping up..
Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if....(nevermind ;-)..2F
kewlj
My Aunt Libby from Wagon Mound, New Mexico won big bucks last year using the Ace Five count and she is legally blind,
It should be noted that Tarzan has been know to masquerade as a 6'6' female from time to time. Maybe 'aunt Libby' is closer to Tarzan than he is letting on. :)
Romes, this is the same Tarzan from Norm's site, who, I can't even call him a proponent of complex counts and systems, because what he employs is so unique it can't really be compared to anything else. But in general terms, when he weighs in on one of the count debate threads, he sides with the 'proponents of complexity'.
So he is just having fun here, playing devil's advocate for the other side of the argument. :/
susumu188
To find strong system (including count system) under given restriction conditions such as rules, penetration and bet-spread, I strongly recommend to use simulation software. Personally I like SBA.
Some months ago, by using SBA, I found that KO RC (so, not TKO) is very strong (means high SCORE) for Double Deck game when a technique called 'Grifter's Gambit' is jointly used.
If someone has interest in the system I found, perhaps I may explain with reasonable price. But, to understand the system, needs preparation knowledge especially about SCORE. Without those knowledge, very difficult to understand.
Some months ago, by using SBA, I found that KO RC (so, not TKO) is very strong (means high SCORE) for Double Deck game when a technique called 'Grifter's Gambit' is jointly used.
If someone has interest in the system I found, perhaps I may explain with reasonable price. But, to understand the system, needs preparation knowledge especially about SCORE. Without those knowledge, very difficult to understand.
Ibeatyouraces
It should be noted that Tarzan has been know to masquerade as a 6'6' female from time to time. Maybe 'aunt Libby' is closer to Tarzan than he is letting on. :)
Romes, this is the same Tarzan from Norm's site, who, I can't even call him a proponent of complex counts and systems, because what he employs is so unique it can't really be compared to anything else. But in general terms, when he weighs in on one of the count debate threads, he sides with the 'proponents of complexity'.
So he is just having fun here, playing devil's advocate for the other side of the argument. :/
Romes, this is the same Tarzan from Norm's site, who, I can't even call him a proponent of complex counts and systems, because what he employs is so unique it can't really be compared to anything else. But in general terms, when he weighs in on one of the count debate threads, he sides with the 'proponents of complexity'.
So he is just having fun here, playing devil's advocate for the other side of the argument. :/
It should be noted that 99.54% of the posters there don't leave their computers long enough to ever play blackjack.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
kewlj
Doubledown casino promotions.
Some months ago, by using SBA, I found that KO RC (so, not TKO) is very strong (means high SCORE) for Double Deck game when a technique called 'Grifter's Gambit' is jointly used.
Some months ago, by using SBA, I found that KO RC (so, not TKO) is very strong (means high SCORE) for Double Deck game when a technique called 'Grifter's Gambit' is jointly used.
I personally am not a fan of 'Grifter's Gambit'. For anyone not familiar the concept of Grifter's Gambit is spreading horizontally, meaning playing multiple spots during neutral/negative counts to eat cards, and combining and increasing the 3 spot wagers into a one spot larger wager during positive counts, to preserve counts and maximize rounds at positive count. I give credit to the notion of thinking outside the box and it was somewhat innovative for it's time, but this is a different time.
Here are some of the problems. A common rule and becoming more common all the time is that a player playing 2 spots must wager 2x minimum wager. A player playing 3 spots must wager either 3 or 5x minimum wager. So if you are playing anything but red chip level, one you start combining and increasing your 3 spot wagers into a single wager, you start to bump up against different thresholds that are 'attention drawer'. I am not talking table max, I am talking thresholds like $500 that begin to draw more attention.
Example. $25 table. Playing 3 spots you are required to wager either $75 or $125 on each spot (either 3 or 5 x minimum). When the count goes positive you combine the 3 wagers into a single wager which would be either $225 or $375 AND you begin to increase that wager, so you quickly hit thresholds that attract more attention.
A second problem. Casinos have become sensitive in recent years to players moving between single and multiple spots. Not saying you can't do it, but it draws attention. Usually they are looking for the other way, spreading to multiple hands during a positive count rather that spreading from multiple to a single hands, but now a days spreading or reducing hands is an attention drawer.
Third, when playing with other players, they are likely to freak when you reduce two spots. It's at this point that someone usually makes a comical response like 'there are other players at the table', meaning that as AP's we don't care what other players do or think. But the fact is, when other players at the table, get upset, it often creates a situation where the pit comes over just to see what is going on. This happens with splitting 10's as well as inserting/reducing extra spots.
Bottom line: draws attention. My whole game from the way I enter, chip inventory or small buy-in, to exiting at first shuffle after showing spread, to exiting without coloring up is designed to get in and get out with minimal attention.
susumu188
Hi kewlj,
I did simulations, for example,
Minimum bet: $25 x 4 boxes = $100
Max bet: $300 x 2 boxes = $600
Then, bet-spread (per round basis, not per box basis) is 1 to 6.
In real casino situation these days, such betting style (with some cover bets) is difficult or heat catching?
I did simulations, for example,
Minimum bet: $25 x 4 boxes = $100
Max bet: $300 x 2 boxes = $600
Then, bet-spread (per round basis, not per box basis) is 1 to 6.
In real casino situation these days, such betting style (with some cover bets) is difficult or heat catching?
kewlj
Minimum bet: $25 x 4 boxes = $100
Max bet: $300 x 2 boxes = $600
In real casino situation these days, such betting style (with some cover bets) is difficult or heat catching?
French Counting System
Common rule is if you are betting 1 spot your could bet $25. If you are playing 2 spots, You must bet $50 on each spot. If you are playing 3 spots you must bet either $75 (3x) or $125 (5x) on each spot.susumu188
Common rule is if you are betting 1 spot your could bet $25. If you are playing 2 spots, You must bet $50 on each spot. If you are playing 3 spots you must bet either $75 (3x) or $125 (5x) on each spot.
I see, I didn't know that. Thanks for your info.
That betting rule is common in all casinos in Las Vegas Nevada and San Diego California and Vancouver Canada?
beachbumbabs
Administrator
Administrator
I hope this is satire?
..
..If you think Hi/Low is 'overcomplicated' (I think you mean 'overly complicated'), then to try to make a Jeff Foxworthy quote: 'Youuuuuuuuuu might not be an AP.'
..
..If you think Hi/Low is 'overcomplicated' (I think you mean 'overly complicated'), then to try to make a Jeff Foxworthy quote: 'Youuuuuuuuuu might not be an AP.'
Card Counting Systems Compared Worksheets
Just for fun..I've started a contest based on the above quote here. Please give it a try!
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
In order to be completely accurate, a system must be based on the effect that removing a card of any value will have on the player’s advantage in the remaining deck. Mathematically, the effect of removing the first card from a deck is shown in the table below.
2 | +0.37% |
3 | +0.44% |
4 | +0.52% |
5 | +0.64% |
6 | +0.45% |
7 | +0.30% |
8 | 0.00 |
9 | -0.13% |
10 | -0.53% |
Ace | -0.49% |
For the next card, the same values would be applied, but would need to be multiplied by 1.02 to be accurate, the third by 1.04, and so on, in order to remain accurate to the proportional values that are available in the remainder of the deck.
Without the assistance of a computer or other calculating device (which are patently disallowed in virtually all casinos), it would be impossible to perform all the calculations necessary to provide a perfect reflection of the player’s advantage while a game is in progress.
Card Counting Systems Compared
Instead, there are a number of card counting systems that use whole numbers that remain constant throughout the counting process to provide an estimation of the advantage. The accuracy of their estimation often comes at the cost of increased complexity, hence difficulty to learn and implement. Here are some of the more popular card counting systems.
High Low Card Counting System
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 |
The high-low system, used in the tutorial, values low cards (2-6) at +1 andhigh cards (tens and aces) at -1. To give credit where credit is due, this system was developed by Stanford Wong, a prolific author who has authored volumes on almost every casino game.
Red Sevens Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | * | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 |
Arnold Snyder’s “Red Sevens” system also seems to be derivative of the High-Low system. It is, in all ways, identical High-Low, except that red sevens count as +1 (black ones count as zero). In effect, this gives all sevens the value of +0.5, which is fairly accurate when considering the effect of a seven on the player’s advantage.
Green Fountain Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
Koko Ita’s “Green Fountain” systems is similar to High-Low—the difference being that sevens and nines are not treated as “neutral” cards. Arguably, this is closer to the actual mathematical weight of the cards, as the seven and nine are not completely neutral—but at the same time, the effect of either is less than a third of a percent.
Uston Advanced Plus Minus
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 |
Legendary blackjack professional Ken Uston pioneered this system, which is largely identical to the high-low count, except that deuces are treated as neutral and sevens as dealer-favourable. Weighed against the mathematical impact of the cards, both assumptions are mistakes, but they more or less cancel each other.
Griffin Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 |
Peter Griffin’s card counting system deviates from high-low by treating twos, threes, and aces as neutral and sevens as dealer-favorable. Although this system meets the criterion of being at least 90% accurate, it’s one of the least reliable discussed here.
Unbalanced Tens Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -2 | 1 |
This system counts all cards except tens as having a value of 1, and the tens as a -2,In effect, it system leads the player to count only the tens, which is worse even than Griffin’s system. Arguably, it’s effective only in estimating the soundness of the “insurance” and “even money” side bets.
High Opt 1 Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 |
This system is the first of two deviations on the high-low system popularized by Lance Humble and Carl Cooper. The primary difference between this strategy and the original is that aces and deuces are treated as “neutral” cards. Though this would seem to defy common sense, it works out to be a reliable system in computer simulations.
High Opt 2 Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 |
Another of Humble and Cooper’s adjustments on the high-low system is shown to the right.This system introduces varying “weights” for cards. When compared with the absolute effects of removing a card, the four, five, and ten each change the casino odds more than 0.50%, and are valued at twice the normal weight.
Zen Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -1 |
Arnold Snyder’s “Zen” system places extra value on the four, five, six, and ten. This is essentially correct, although the ace also falls within the same range and is given only a -1 weight.
Wong Halves Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -2 |
Among the most accurate counting systems is Stanford Wong’s “halves”, which uses a variety of values to better reflect the actual mathematical impact of cards of varying values. This is arguably the most reliable system available, and produces an accurate estimation in almost 99% of all situations.
Uston APC Card Counting
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | A |
1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | -1 | -3 | 0 |
Ken Uston’s APC system also uses an array of values to assign different weights to each card. As with many systems, the impact of aces and deuces seems to be underestimated—and curiously, a value of +1 is assigned to the eights, which are the only card that is completely neutral. Professor nails las vegas. At yet, this system meets the criterion of being at least 90% accurate.
Best Card Counting System
Deciding which system is the “best” is generally a matter of personal preference—balancing the reliability of a system against the feasibility of learning and using it.
All of the systems discussed above produce reliable results. They lead a player to correctly estimate his advantage in at least 90% of all situations. While none are perfect, the High Opt 2, Red Sevens, Uston APC, Wong Halves, and Zen systems all yield results that are closest to perfection (more than 95% accurate).
Ease of learning and implementation, however, is entirely subjective and depends on the mental dexterity of the individual player. Arguably, the “easier” systems are those that do not require you to memorize different values for different cards (i.e., some are plus or minus one, others two, others three). In that case, the Unbalanced Ten, High-Low, High-Opt 1, and Uston plus/minus systems would be considered the easiest.
If you’re looking to learn card counting for the first time, it would be worthwhile to attempt to learn one of the more accurate systems like Blackjack Apprenticeship and if you find it too difficult, downgrade to one of the easier ones. If you already count cards and are looking to switch systems, the best advice is to stick with what you’re using (unless it’s wildly inaccurate). Chances are the mistakes you’ll make in the process of learning a new system will be costly—and the difference between one system and another tends to be a few percent, or a few tenths of a percent.