Golden Touch BJ?

[Bigdiggie]

Alrighty folks, I gots a doozy of a question. Just got home from B&N and happened to come across a new book called Golden Touch Blackjack (I think). Interested, I sat down and read about half the book. In it, the author details his new (computer tested) BJ counting method. While he admits that you lose percentage gains compaired to high-low methods, he says one gains in the simplicity with which it can be implemented.

Forgive me if this was already answered in another thread (please direct me to it if it was).

The Speed Count (SC) as it was called, involved starting out at a 31 count for double deck games, based on an average 2.7 cards per hand and one low card per hand. You increase the count with each low card. At the end of a table round, you subtract the number of hands played at the table including the dealers and another for splits. If your count is 31 or above you have an advantage. Below, you have a disadvantage. I assume this is an unbalanced count in disguse (like the red 7). The number is lowered to start with each sucessive deck quantity increase. For 8 deck games, your count starts at 26... once you reach 31 you have the advantage

Has anyone heard/tried this? I know all about counting and various methods, but I pretty much suck at it. I can see myself being able to use this however, so if it works in simulations, like claimed, that would be great to know. I can live with the decrease in earnings if i'm able to guage increases in advantage better. Please discuss.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It's very weak

From what I hear, it will get you an advantage but as a guy who has experienced the frightening swings of advantage play, I wouldn't send a friend into a casino with that kind of a system to bet his own money. Those systems are only incrementally easier than KO anyway (when used in a real-world environment) but much weaker.

All I can say is... practice, practice, practice with KO, High-Low or some other legitimate count and if you don't think you can do it, don't fret. You are in the majority. There are worse things in life than not being able to count cards.

 

[countfast]

Snyder endorsed the Speed Count System on his board and I recently returned from a four day trip playing 6D's. I used the system the entire trip and won $1,200 with an initial BR of $2,000. I wonged in approximately 1/3 of the tables I played and wonged out the same amount. I played the $10 tables with a max bet of $35. You will realize the benefit in approximately 20% of the shoes you play. It's not as strong as HiLo but extremely easy to learn and use. No question it is better than not using a count at all. I have been playing BJ seriously for the past three years, and have never taken insurance. Twice during this trip when the count hit 41 I insured a blackjack and hit it. It's a good system for the casual blackjack player who does not have the time and patience of learning a stronger system.

-CF ]

 

[Sonny]

I played the $10 tables with a max bet of $35.

A 1-3 spread at a shoe game using SC? What kind of EV do you get from that? Anything?

I have been playing BJ seriously for the past three years, and have never taken insurance.

Really?! Never in three years? You should be taking it at least once every hour if you're playing properly. How many hours did you play in those three years?

It's a good system for the casual blackjack player who does not have the time and patience of learning a stronger system.

I think that sums it up perfectly. That is exactly the market that the distributors are trying to tap into. In that respect it is similar to Snyder's “Senior’s Count” system designed specifically for people with bad eyesight. It does serve a purpose but most people will not find it useful.

-Sonny-

 

[EasyRhino]

thanks diggie, I hadn't really heard an explanation of how the mechanics of the count even worked.

I honestly don't see how this is easier than KO? You still have to maintain a running count, except now you need to not only count the cards, but you need to count the hands. So what's the point?

 

[countfast]

SC provides better cover.

 

[Sonny]

SC provides better cover.

Sure, because it is less accurate. Following your logic you could get even better cover by not counting at all! :laugh:

Using an inferior system because you are worried about cover is not a good idea. There are many times when you will not need to use any cover plays, or maybe just a few for a short time. If you use a weak system then you will always be making "cover" plays (bad decisions) whether you want to or not, which will hurt you. You shouldn't commit to being a weak player just because you are afraid.

A smart player will learn an accurate system and simply use a few cover moves whenever necessary. Almost any good book will give you ideas to improve your act at the tables and these forums are full or tricks that people use to take the heat off. In fact, Ian Anderson wrote two books that focus on this topic alone. Schlesinger also has the definitive list of cover plays and their cost so that you can create your own "menu" of cover plays that will not hurt your EV very much. Often you will not need to make any cover plays at all if you have a good act because you can use your personality as "cover plays" instead of purposely making playing errors.

This will allow you to make intelligent cover plays and still maintain a strong edge over the casinos. It will increase your odds of winning in the short run and increase the amount that you win in the long run.

-Sonny-

 

[mgcasinos]

Really?! Never in three years? You should be taking it at least once every hour if you're playing properly. How many hours did you play in those three years?

Bingo!

I think it's not important whether you take the insurance(just a plus bet).

But it's important that when to take the insurance.

 

[Bigdiggie]

Hey all, thanks for your replies. Perhaps I missed it in the book, but I don't believe the author wrote the exact difference in advantage between this and a hi-low method. The more I look at this, the more it looks like Arnold Synder's Red 7 count with a pre-adjustment for the true count. I think anrold has one start out at -16 on an 8 deck game. This seems like the same thing but just using a different reference point (31 instead of zero and 26 instead of -16). Does anyone else see that too?

I'd be interested if anyone came up with real numbers on how much of an advantage you lose using this compaided to a hi-low lite. By ignoring the high cards you're actually taking them into account in a twisted way. Every decrease in low cards means a higher density of high cards. I guess you'd just have to come up with completely different charts for what plays to make when you are 31, 32, 33, 34, 35+. Probably the same plays as in a hi-low lite??!!

 

[zengrifter]

Hey all, thanks for your replies. Perhaps I missed it in the book, but I don't believe the author wrote the exact difference in advantage between this and a hi-low method. The more I look at this, the more it looks like Arnold Synder's Red 7 count with a pre-adjustment for the true count. I think anrold has one start out at -16 on an 8 deck game. This seems like the same thing but just using a different reference point (31 instead of zero and 26 instead of -16). Does anyone else see that too?

I'd be interested if anyone came up with real numbers on how much of an advantage you lose using this compaided to a hi-low lite. By ignoring the high cards you're actually taking them into account in a twisted way. Every decrease in low cards means a higher density of high cards. I guess you'd just have to come up with completely different charts for what plays to make when you are 31, 32, 33, 34, 35+. Probably the same plays as in a hi-low lite??!!

R7 is virtually the same +EV as HiLoLite. GT and OPP are inferior and not worth learning. zg