Balanced count users please comment

The nature of unbalanced counts is that the count starts way negative. As a result, most of our large bets are placed near the end of the shoe. Some of us wonder if we're missing out on opportunities near the beginning of the shoe, simply because of the way our counting system is designed.

So, here's my question for you balanced count users: Do you commonly have the chance to place large bets early in the shoe, or do most of them occur near the end?

I'm not really looking for technical answers here, just comments based on your personal experience. Thanks!

Canceler said:

The nature of unbalanced counts is that the count starts way negative. As a result, most of our large bets are placed near the end of the shoe. Some of us wonder if we're missing out on opportunities near the beginning of the shoe, simply because of the way our counting system is designed.

So, here's my question for you balanced count users: Do you commonly have the chance to place large bets early in the shoe, or do most of them occur near the end?

I'm not really looking for technical answers here, just comments based on your personal experience. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Its all the SAME! Frequency of larger bets is NOT increased notably with balanced counts. zg

If there were a way to get to the money quicker I also would like to hear about it. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is.
But there are ways to get to the money differently.

There is a sacrifice we make for the ease of unbalanced versus balanced, and it's detrimental to us. Specifically, unbalanced counts make the money on bet sizing and not actual playing efficiency. We wager our top bet when the count is high and we either bet minimum or leave the table when the count is low. Those are our options, and while they make perfect sense, they are also very confining.

An example is that unbalanced counts are not suited for something like Snyder's Depth-charging. But it really doesn't matter anyway, since depth-charging requires a single deck game that is deeply dealt. Yeah, like we can find those anymore.

I have seriously thought about this whole question of balanced versus unbalanced counts. I used to wonder what am I sacrificing for ease of use by going with the unbalanced count? The answer is really nothing. There just isn't enough information available early in the shoe for any type of counting system, balanced or unbalanced, to provide you with an accurate idea of your expectation.

Frustrating

I have found it frustrating as well, but what ZG and Gregory state is about what I'd deduced. The point in counting is to place the higher bets when you have the advantage and know you have the advantage. It's a sinking feeling when a shoe starts out and high cards are falling dragging the count hopelessly downward and there is nothing much you can do to take advantage of it other than leave the table or ride it out with minimum bets.

Gregory said:

Specifically, unbalanced counts make the money on bet sizing and not actual playing efficiency.

Click to expand...

This is not accurate. zg

Gregory said:

Specifically, unbalanced counts make the money on bet sizing and not actual playing efficiency.

Click to expand...

zengrifter said:

This is not accurate. zg

Click to expand...

Sheesh, it isn't exactly something that I made up. To quote from Vancura and Fuchs:

"To take advantage of depth-charging, a system with a high "playing efficiency" must be used. Therefore, do not use depth-charging with the K-O system (recall that most of K-O's gain comes from proper betting variation)."
Knock-Out Blackjack, April 2004 reprint, page 134

Perhaps I should have been more specific and said "The Knock-Out unbalanced count system makes the money on bet sizing and not actual playing efficiency", but wouldn't that be splitting hairs?

Granted Gregory, KO does emphasize betting gain over play, especially in Rookie, but does fully underscore solid Basic Strategy. It compares an oversimplified BS to a more conventional BS (we talked about these in another thread) but does mention that most of the advantage comes from the betting strategy. However, it then goes on to describe indices for altering Basic Strategy to maximize gain.

Unbalanced Counts

From my secondhand only knowledge of unbalanced counts, i understand their weakness comes from poor accuracy on counts that vary greatly from the pivot point...when the count is close to the pivot point, they are quite good...by contrast, on high or low true counts, a balanced count player would have a better idea of what his edge is, and would vary bets & strategy with greater accuracy...

i use only hi-lo, a level one system, and i do not find doing the true count conversion is not a tough job...however, if I were to go to a level 2 count, then perhaps the gains by going to an unbalanced would be worth looking at....because when i've played with level 2, then the true count conversion gets sticky ...Unbalanced Zen comes to mind as a possible candidate...and as true counts do not fluctuate as radically in shoe games as they do in pitch, this might be a good application...

still, i play only as a hobby, and if am content to stay with a simple system...

Gregory said:

To quote from Vancura and Fuchs:"To take advantage of depth-charging, a system with a high "playing efficiency" must be used. Therefore, do not use depth-charging with the K-O system (recall that most of K-O's gain comes from proper betting variation)."

Click to expand...

That quote applies equally to MOST USERS' balanced counts. The type of count that might be ideal for depth-charging may include 125-index
ZEN, multi-parametered/bivaluate counts, HiOPT2, etc. Comparing KO w/top20 vs. HiLo w/top20 they both derive 75% of their respective gain from betting. zg

Trying to understand the concept...

zengrifter said:

Its all the SAME! Frequency of larger bets is NOT increased notably with balanced counts. zg

Click to expand...

Might the reason for this be that even if the running count takes off early in the shoe, the "decks remaining" divisor is still so large that the true count has a hard time increasing very much?

Canceler said:

Might the reason for this be that even if the running count takes off early in the shoe, the "decks remaining" divisor is still so large that the true count has a hard time increasing very much?

Click to expand...

No. Your misunderstanding/confusion is that the unbalanced counts start (IRC) in the minus because of the imbalance. They don't reach +EV slower (they rise faster because of the exctra +cards - they get to +EV at the same speed - just compare HiLo TCs to KO pivots and KC. Its the same. zg

Hmmmmm

Thanks, zg. I'm going to have to spend some time thinking about that until it sinks in.