some questions about counting

[agent_fish]

A couple years ago I bought Sklansky on BJ which I found interesting. Currently, I am reading Bringing Down The House which has renewed my interest in the game.

I have a couple of questions for the experience counters out there.
1)How do you know how much to increase your bet? I know that if the count is highly positive, you want to bet as big as possible. However, I'm not sure how to correctly size them in moderately or slightly positive decks. I realize that bankroll considerations would come into play as well. Sklansky's book does not address this issue in much depth from what I remember. (I haven't read it in a while, and I can't find it right now.)

2)When dividing the count by the number of decks remaining, would one need to be so precise as to take into account half decks, or would an estimate of the number of decks remaining rounded to the nearest whole number be sufficient? I've read that with practice this estimation becomes easier.

3)What is the best counting book?





The technical side of counting cards seems pretty simple. (Simple, as in, after practicing for 100 hours it would be simple for a gifted person.)
1)Addition and subtraction
2)Division
3)Memorizing a series of If,then statements.

It seems like working with a team greatly minimizes the amount of heat brought. I think the toughest part would be finding the right (and willing) people and scraping together a large enough bankroll to make it worthwhile.

[AlienBoy]

1) You want to make the smallest possible bet when the deck is -EV, and increase when it is +EV. Ideally, you increase it by the amount suggested by the Kelly Criterion - however, practical considerations prevent this.

The practical consideration is that the casino will notice that while you were making $5 bets, you are now making $500 bets. The casino will likely back you off when you make such an obvious play.

Further, the specific counting method you decide to use typically includes bet sizing in it, so use the bet sizing recommended by that counting method.


2) Not all counting methods require that you convert to "true count" where in you estimate the *number of cards* (not decks) remaining. KO for instance does not require a true count conversion.

3) Like anything, there is no "one best book". Read a number of them.

I recommend:

Professional Blackjack By Stanford Wong

Blackjack for Blood (Details the Omega system)

KO Blackjack (specifically details the KO system)

Beat the Dealer (the original book by Thorp)



AB


BTW: for a team you probably want 3 good counters, and a "crazy gambler".

I'm available for the crazy gambler part...

[agent_fish]

[ QUOTE ]
you estimate the *number of cards* (not decks) remaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything I've read talks about dividing the running count by the number of decks remaining to get the true count. What does this statement mean with respect to the hi-lo method? Are you implying that I should account for half-decks?

Also, at the end of BDTH, Kevin Lewis writes in an essay that they accounted for the inherent disadvantage in the game by subtracting an offset from the true count. For example, if the house normally had a 50.5-49.5 advantage based on their particular rules, he would subtract one from the true count to account for this. Has anyone else heard of this?

[ReidDeCardes]

In HiLo you estimate by whole deck. There are some counts that estimate by half deck, but generally that is for 2 deck and single deck ( if you can find it ). I think the Zen count uses half deck estimation. I have never heard of an in-use counting method that estimates by card.

I believe there has been simulations done that determined that you gain very little by going beyond whole deck estimation for HiLo, especially in 6 or 8 deck.

Beat the Dealer is good for historical purposes, but it is not a book to learn counting. The book debate is endless and appears at least once a month here. So do a search and you can get a ton of opinions.

[AlienBoy]

True count needs an estimate of the number of cards remaining, and you use decks or deck fractions to accomplish this to keep the math as simple as possible, and also because you quickly reach diminishing returns. For practical purposes:

The Omega II:

For 6 or more decks *remaining* estimate to the nearest *deck*

For 2 to 6 decks remaining, estimate to the nearest half deck

For less than 2 decks remaining, estimate to the nearest quarter deck.



AB

[ReidDeCardes]

I think your answer to the OP was confusing and di not answer his question. He was asking if estimating by whole deck would be accurate enough or would he need to estimate to half deck.

Your point is purely academic, at best. I have not read Blackjack for Blood, but I highly doubt you would divide by 156 when 3 decks are left in the shoe. HiLo would divide by 3. I believe, if my memory serves me right, that the Zen count would divide by 6 ( 3 half decks ).

Back to the OPs real question. I believe that the MIT team used HiLo. You estimate whole decks when you use HiLo. If you are serious about card counting you may want to consider computer training software. The standard is Casino Verite by QFIT.

[AlienBoy]

No, your right, my earlier post was unclear - the underlying theory is about the cards left, but for real world use, you think in terms of decks or fractions of a deck.

Omega II is the system outlined in BJ for Blood

With Omega II, if there were 3 1/2 decks left, you'd divide by 3.5.


The Hi/Lo as detailed in Wong's "Professional Blackjack" talks about estimating deck fractions. In example Wong gives, he indicates that if you estimate that 2/3rds is left, that you divide by 2/3.


The point I was getting at earlier is that from a pure mathematical point of view, it is how many cards are left, but that practical considerations mean that you need to keep the math simple. I know Wong, and he has no problem keeping several counts and doing lots of math in his head.

Though if you have a problem dealing with the more complicated fraction decks, I think you can substitute full decks without *that* much of a penalty.


Personally, I think of counting as a tedious grind, so I find the KO system (which does not need a true count, as it is an unbalanced count) is just fine, and more "fun" to play, at least for me.




AB

[ReidDeCardes]

I agree that KO is a good way to go, especially for someone starting out or who is not interested in being a professional counter. The KO book really lays it out well and tells you what to do in terms of betting ramps, etc.. Other books are good for expanding knowledge but KO is a great book.

When I started learning to count I checked out the KO system but a friend convinced me to go with HiLo because you don't have to change index numbers based on the number of decks. That is true, but all I ever play is 2 or 6 deck, so that isn't too much to deal with. And at my limits, the difference is less than a drink tip!

I also like the idea of having less tedium and to become more chatty at the table. I'd like to develop a better act and not be thinking about counting, and have more fun too. I have thought about switching to KO and seeing if I find it easier.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that KO is a good way to go, especially for someone starting out or who is not interested in being a professional counter. The KO book really lays it out well and tells you what to do in terms of betting ramps, etc.. Other books are good for expanding knowledge but KO is a great book.

When I started learning to count I checked out the KO system but a friend convinced me to go with HiLo because you don't have to change index numbers based on the number of decks. That is true, but all I ever play is 2 or 6 deck, so that isn't too much to deal with. And at my limits, the difference is less than a drink tip!

I also like the idea of having less tedium and to become more chatty at the table. I'd like to develop a better act and not be thinking about counting, and have more fun too. I have thought about switching to KO and seeing if I find it easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

someone has developed a system that he calls reKO for "ridiculously easy KO", in which the indices always pivot around a running count of +2. in simulations it performs >99% of preferred KO. doesn't get much easier than that - google for more info.

[ReidDeCardes]

I googled reKO and it was developed by the guy who wrote Casino Verite, which I use. For someone at my level of play and frequency of play it seems perfect.

Tkanks for the tip.