8d with .47 house edge

[Automatic Monkey]

Red 7 is, as a matter of principle, a better count than KO.

I'm not sure. If you truly half-rank the 7 (by counting all the 7's as +0.5) it is. But counting only the red ones adds an extra degree of variance.

 

[QFIT]

I'm not sure. If you truly half-rank the 7 (by counting all the 7's as +0.5) it is. But counting only the red ones adds an extra degree of variance.

Yes if you count all 7's as +0.5 you have a level II strategy which will clearly perform better than counting half the Sevens. But, I don't know what 'matter of principle' means. Even counting all Sevens as .5, Red7 does not always come out on top. It depends on decks, penetration, rules, indexes, and spread. For example, KO performs better with six decks at penetrations of 4.5/6 and better. Red7 works better in pitch games.

 

[Mimosine]

The amount half-ranked counts are off when they're off is less than the amount KO is off when it's off. I believe making extreme index plays a little too early or a little too late is less costly than ramping up the bets too early or too late.

i would agree with that.

 

[moo321]

Because Red 7 counts the 7 as .5, and the effect of removal for the 7 is lower, it should generally perform better than any count which weights the 7 as 1. There are specific instances where KO will perform better, but generally Red 7 is the best.

 

[golfnut101]

effect

does 'generally' effect us nickel guys ? I mean, what kind of decrease/increase are we talking ?

 

[QFIT]

Because Red 7 counts the 7 as .5, and the effect of removal for the 7 is lower, it should generally perform better than any count which weights the 7 as 1. There are specific instances where KO will perform better, but generally Red 7 is the best.

Yes in theory reducing the tag of the seven improves BC. But it hurts PE. Of course the details of the theory are based on balanced counts and R7 and KO are unbalanced. And this is based on counting the Seven as .5, not counting some Sevens. And it's all an estimate. When you are talking about two strategies that are so close; you must look at all the variables through simulation. A simple formula won't do. Here's a sample comparison between KO-P and Red7 (7 as .5) using 6 decks, S17, DAS, 1-16 spread all penetrations between 26 and 130 cards cut off. Of course this is just one set of circumstances.

 

[Mimosine]

does 'generally' effect us nickel guys ? I mean, what kind of decrease/increase are we talking ?

these differences are roughly less than 1% in BE and PE.
i'd guess that it affects EV to the tune of ~~0.02% over 1,000,000 hands.
though there are sims and tables everywhere which report the EXACT differences.

it will affect anyone who plays 100s of 1000s of hands in their lifetime.

the question is how much do you play? and is it worth the effort to count half ranks? in my opinion if you're going to go to the trouble of learning a level II count, then learn something more powerful.

 

[moo321]

Red 7 isn't a level 2 count. It just weights the 7 less by not counting black sevens. It's just as easy to use as hi-lo.

 

[QFIT]

Red 7 isn't a level 2 count. It just weights the 7 less by not counting black sevens. It's just as easy to use as hi-lo.

If you count the Seven's as .5; then it is a level II system. If you don't it is level I; but less accurate from an effect of removal viewpoint. Counting half the sevens is a compromise. Nothing wrong with compromises - all of card counting is based on compromises. As long as one knows the effects of the compromise.

 

[Kasi]

pen is min 75%; br is 5000 playing nickels.

I doubt if a 1000 unit bankroll is adequate with that spread in a play-all game.
Can't support a min $5 bet.

It probably could support a BC game with a $25 unit spreading 1-4.

But don't listen to me. Just my guess.

 

[golfnut101]

1000 unit

Appreciate your comment; I do not play-all. I backcount and if I do start a shoe(heads up opportunity) I definitely do not play neg counts as the casino I play at has some bad rules. Thanks again for the feedback.