darrislance said:
I typically play a SD or DD, H17, noDAS, and DA2. I currently play a level 1 system, but I believe I can increase my EV if I upgrade my system. Does anyone have any advice as to which system would work best for these conditions? I realize that success with any counting system is mostly determined by how much effort is applied. I have the drive and determination to learn a multi-level count, but I would appreciate some insight before I pursue this any further.
I say forget learning a level2-3 count. Just play faster and longer and with more indices. zg
--------------
EXCERPT FROM
ZENGRIFTER INTERVIEW (Page 4-5):
You’ve often stated that precise index numbers are not important.
Can you explain why you feel that way?
While other experts emphasize the top 20 or so index plays, I advocate the use of 60+ indices, and personally utilize 80+ with my Zen count. The endlessly debated point I’ve been making is that so-called precision index numbers are a “myth” and offer no significant added gain over extreme-rounded numbers! Whether one uses an index “granularity-scale” of 0-1-2-3-4-5-6 or 0-2-4-6 or even 0-3-6 it will make absolutely no difference in actual casino play spanning three million hands, which is ten years of full time play. Time is money and ‘extreme-rounded’ index numbers can be deployed faster in real casino conditions. You gain much more in ease and resultant speed than you lose in lost precision. This has been pointed out previously by Snyder in his Hi-Lo Lite and True Edge Zen, in Ken Fuchs’ Hi-Lo Express, in George C’s Extreme Rounded Zen, and by John Imming, who developed the Universal Blackjack Engine and simulated billions of hands to prove this very point.
It seems you have broken away from the card counter “orthodoxy” over this and the related use of intuition?
The hit-stand-double index for basic strategy departure is a wide-border “coin-toss” zone of perhaps two digits, plus or minus. Therefore, I encourage the use of one’s intuition when the decision is close. If decision by coin-toss will not reduce our effectiveness for these ever-frequent wide-border decisions, does it not stand to reason that we can learn to increasingly utilize the ‘meta-awareness’ faculties of our brain and “go with the force,” so to speak, to potentially obtain a subjective improvement over raw statistical expectation?
Consider for example, that while our conscious mind may not be aware of that extra 4 or 5 still remaining in the deck, and not evident by our true count of +1 when we face 16 vs. 10, modern science tells us that our brain did notice the hit-not-stand situation, despite a true count indication to the contrary.
I once debated this issue with Don Schlesinger, who labeled my approach “sloppy, with no inherent advantage over precise.” I countered that if he was to replace “sloppy” with “fuzzy,” as in what computer science calls ‘fuzzy-logic,’ I would opt for the latter.
To summarize, one should strive for 60+ indices, but use a coarser granularity scale of two to four digits wide, individually tailored for ‘pattern-recognition’ ease. For example, if your index for 12 vs. 2 and 12 vs. 3 is +4 and +2 respectively, you can re-label both at +3 so they’re easier to remember and faster to utilize. Or by the same token, all indices of -1,0, and +1 can be rounded to 0, and so forth. So, re-label 60+ indices and learn accordingly.
Further, strive to play faster and longer. If 40+ extra indices can increase one’s relative expectation by 20%, and if we can increase our playing speed by, say 20%, and then add to that a 20% longer average playing day, then we have potentially increased our per-day EV by perhaps 70%. And that’s not even counting the intuition potentiality.
60+ index departures? Isn’t that a lot of numbers to learn?
Is it feasible for novices?
Today’s emphasis on the so-called ‘Illustrious-18' indexes has conditioned newer counters to not attempt learning more - but learning 60 or so is actually fast and easy.
How should a beginner go about it?
Use ‘flash-cards’ - just like when we learned our multiplication tables. Start by ordering the cards in sequence, then after awhile when that is mastered, randomize the cards. Most novices will be pleasantly surprised to find the additional 40+ numbers mastered within a few hours of practice.
Which indices should comprise the “Grifter-60+”?
Well, lets see, off the top of my head:
12 vs. 2-6; 13 vs. 2-6; 14 vs. 2-6&9-10;15 vs. 2&9-A; 16 vs. 9-A; 8 vs. 4-6; 9 vs. 2-4&7;10 vs. 8-A; 11 vs. 8-A; A8 vs. 4-6; A9 vs. 4-6; 88 vs. 10-A; 99 vs. A; 10s vs. 4-6.
That should do it... oh, and learn separate numbers for dealer 6 and Ace, depending on whether the rules are hit-or-stand on soft-17, and assuming that one plays both versions.
So you really think that its worth the extra effort?
Yes, if you play more than a few times per year. 60+ indices also aid your camouflage slightly, since most surveillance and pit staff only know, at best, the ‘I-18.’
--END EXCERPT
