Heads-Up Speed and Count Choice

[Friendo]

I have recently been enjoying more heads-up play. It might be luck, or it might be a better sense of which dealers will likely drive away other patrons, or what times to check which casinos, but it's happening more than it used to.

In a game with other players, I can keep a level II count (Mentor) and make all my playing decisions without any delay. But I have noticed that I am slowing down the action when I play heads-up, as there is no free fraction of a second to add up the table while first base is playing his hand.

I have no idea whether a single-level count would speed up heads-up play, but I believe that the biggest weakness in my play is my one-on-one speed.

I have no problem calculating the count quickly for - my problem is remembering the count while adding up hands and checking the payout, but this is not a matter of which count one uses, IMO.

Last week I was playing two hands as fast as I have ever played, against a dealer who puts me at ease, and I had this weird feeling that I could be playing at least 15% faster if I were spared the modestly greater arithmetic necessary in a level II count.

I'm skeptical of the accuracy and just-play-5-more-minutes-each-hour arguments in favor of level I counts, but, since heads-up play is the most valuable casino time we get, I think there may be something to the heads-up speed argument.

I'm not considering moving to a level I count. I have a couple of thousand more hours of improvement ahead of me yet.

Who here feels that they can keep up with any dealer heads-up, eating up hands as fast as the dealer can serve them up? Is count level a big factor, or is it really just a matter of experience?

 

[aslan]

I can't speak to a level 2 count other than I suspect I would have the same trouble you are experiencing. I have absolutely no trouble with the KO count. I have even counted a fast dealer and carried on a conversation at the same time.

 

[Friendo]

I have even counted a fast dealer and carried on a conversation at the same time.

The conversation thing is another dimension here. I need to come off as looser and more relaxed in a casino.

My best guess is that right now I come across as detached/withdrawn at the tables - too much like the profile of a counter. Fortunately, so far, I am able to mask this as the uncertainty of an inexperienced ploppy.

Ploppies, particularly the know-it-all species, treat me as a noob, and I am very grateful for this, even as I innocently double that A-8 against the dealer's 6.

The cure seems to be practice, practice, and more practice, in the form of actual hours at the tables.

 

[aslan]

The conversation thing is another dimension here. I need to come off as looser and more relaxed in a casino.

My best guess is that right now I come across as detached/withdrawn at the tables - too much like the profile of a counter. Fortunately, so far, I am able to mask this as the uncertainty of an inexperienced ploppy.

Ploppies, particularly the know-it-all species, treat me as a noob, and I am very grateful for this, even as I innocently double that A-8 against the dealer's 6.

The cure seems to be practice, practice, and more practice, in the form of actual hours at the tables.

Right on. You'll become more and more relaxed as time goes on. I still have the problem with appearing too relaxed and focused. I am hoping to come off as a fairly good bs player, and spend time watching the sports games overhead, but ploppies always seem to see me as someone who knows what he is doing, which is not exactly what I am hoping for. I may move more to the guy who has had too much to drink. I think that has more cover possibilities. It's worked well when I've tried it, including the sober up routine with an order of a coffee or two.

 

[zengrifter]

I have no idea whether a single-level count would speed up heads-up play, but I believe that the biggest weakness in my play is my one-on-one speed.

You should be able to match speed with the fastest dealers heads up.
I doubt that level-1 would be any easier, maybe even harder at first since you are already ingrained. Drill harder with software. zg

 

[aslan]

You should be able to match speed with the fastest dealers heads up.
I doubt that level-1 would be any easier, maybe even harder at first since you are already ingrained. Drill harder with software. zg

Good point about being already ingrained. For the same reason, I have shunned going to a level 2 count, even though I know I have the capability. Hey! Is there a good level 2 UNbalanced count out there?

 

[Gamblor]

Yes, there is a certain time when there are more heads up games available in most casinos.

 

[Friendo]

You should be able to match speed with the fastest dealers heads up.

I could be pushing the limits of my admittedly poor mental reflexes and short-term memory.

Counting is nearly subconscious, but I can't f___ing add up my hands while I'm counting, especially heads-up, so I have to run through the totals of my hands as the dealer is flipping the hole card.

There's a difference between knowing and really knowing.

In high school, I could put the curveball over the outside corner, but if the hitter grounded to first and pulled the first baseman down the line or into the hole, I remember that 2/5-second delay of indecision before leaving the mound: you know you have to run to first, but your mind is still visualizing throwing that curve. Even major league pitchers have trouble with this sort of multitasking, so they run that play endlessly in spring training.

I can count just fine with other players at the table, but my heads-up problems show I'm still wet behind the ears. The count is nearly subconscious, but not really there yet.

 

[revrac]

Good point about being already ingrained. For the same reason, I have shunned going to a level 2 count, even though I know I have the capability. Hey! Is there a good level 2 UNbalanced count out there?

UBZII, but i suppose you already know about that one.

 

[aslan]

UBZII, but i suppose you already know about that one.

I have thought about switching, but really don't see much gain from it. Maybe others are proponents of the level 2 unbalanced count and can share why they feel it's so much better than a level 1 unbalanced count. A level 2 count is not so difficult, it's the nuisance truing up of the balanced counts that I feel requires more attention than it's worth.

 

[metronome]

your mind is still visualizing throwing that curve. Even major league pitchers have trouble with this sort of multitasking, so they run that play endlessly in spring training.

Friendo, you've answered your own question. I agree with zengrifter, practice can make (almost)perfect.

 

[FLASH1296]

Perhaps my thoughts on this matter are of dubious value as I
have been counting at Level 2 (Zen and Hi-Opt II) for longer
than many of the readers of this thread have been alive.

I cannot fathom the process of keeping the count taking any
longer, [playing heads-up], with a Level 2 Count than it does
with a Level 1 Count.

To me the process is (virtually) instantaneous, and even if there
was a difference, I doubt that it could be insignificant.

footnote: You mentioned playing two spots "heads-up" Why ?

 

[aslan]

Friendo, you've answered your own question. I agree with zengrifter, practice can make (almost)perfect.

Willie Mosconi said the same in his classic manual on pocket billiards. Practice does not make perfect, but practice does make one better.

 

[Friendo]

You mentioned playing two spots "heads-up" Why ?

I always play two spots because of low betting limits at this shop, but I try to play two spots all the time, anyway.

If there's a good mathematical reason to stick with one during heads-up play, throw it out there.

(I have heard that opinions vary on this matter, but I can't remember the essence of the argument.)

?

 

[FLASH1296]

When you bet two hands, the dealer and yourself are using, on average, 8.1 cards.

If you play two hands, one at a time, then 10.8 cards will, on average, be used.

So … by playing 2 hands a round you get more rounds to play.

More important may be the the reduced risk. You can wager significantly more, while assuming the same risk, by betting 2 hands of .75X on each hand or 3 hands of .60X.

note: .75 and .60 are imprecise.

The experts advise that when playing heads-up play one hand, but with others at the table, play multiple hands. There is a factor of diminishing returns after 2 hands, and I have found that playing 3 hands draws heat.

Almost needless to say — is that if you switch to multiple hands when the True Count is tasty — and drop to one hand when the advantage has evaporated - then you are just begging to be 86'd.

BEST is to start with 2 hands, but if you drop to 1 hand, continue at 1 hand until the shuffle. In DD games this is imperative. Be aware that in shoe games this is still very sound advice, but not as crucial as it is "pitch" games.

 

[Gamblor]

If you play 2 hands all the time, heat wise that is fine.

Main drawback of 2 hands is your playing double the hands at a negative and neutral count. Of course aggressive wonging defrays this disadvantage, which if I recall correctly, you do Friendo.

 

[zengrifter]

Good point about being already ingrained. For the same reason, I have shunned going to a level 2 count, even though I know I have the capability. Hey! Is there a good level 2 UNbalanced count out there?

UBZ is as good as ZEN and Mentor.
I think Mentor would make a good Ub'd level-2: count the 8 +1.
Anyone want to take a shot at simming? It will be called UBM. zg

 

[zengrifter]

I always play two spots because of low betting limits at this shop, but I try to play two spots all the time, anyway.

If there's a good mathematical reason to stick with one during heads-up play, throw it out there.

(I have heard that opinions vary on this matter, but I can't remember the essence of the argument.)

Per BJA chart, and Flash above, you will get more +action w/ 1 hand at +counts heads-up.
On the other hand the cut-card effect makes a good case for always playing 2 hands heads up on 6D. (I think, or is that only with other players present?) zg

See also - "Grifter Gambit" for 6D Shoes

 

[Friendo]

Thanks

I usually Wong out at -4 Mentor TC, but I sometimes play all on shoes with 1 deck cuts, if the count doesn't become too abysmal. DD' once said something on the other board about not Wonging out of 1-deck cuts, by which I think he meant that there was no point in leaving if you knew where you wanted to be there for the next shoe.

In terms of simulations and N0, this is not really borne out: even for such deep cuts, the play-all situation in 6 decks is not great. But the simulator, at least as I have set it, assumes you'll be able to find another 1-deck cut at another table after a short while, with fewer than 3 other players present. Yeah, sure.

I'm still figuring out a decent Wonging strategy where I play. Even -4 might be too generous: I have sat through a metric ton of shoes which go nowhere in my short career. I'd rather be back on my feet and back-counting somewhere else than feeding a shoe which won't go south to -4, and will at best give me 1-2 hands of half-max bets near the end. Time to re-read the story of Rabbit in BJAIII? Sheesh, these nowhere shoes are a drag.

It's hard to trust the simulations here, because the time between abandoning one shoe and picking up another uncrowded candidate is all over place, varying between 1 minute and 20, with a mean lying I know not where.

The small local joints tend to have 2-5 tables apiece, which makes hopping too conspicuous, IMO. I can always casino-hop: probably nobody wonders why you disappear and then reappear, and walking is more fun, and perhaps more profitable, than sitting.

Thanks for the ideas about sticking to one hand heads-up.

BTW, FLASH, I don't know about dropping to 1 hand from two. Jumping bets up and down doesn't draw much interest from dealers and PCs, particularly at my level, but it's a freakin' family emergency for some local dealers here when you abandon one of your betting circles. Must be something about the way I comb my hair.

Hmm.

See also - "Grifter Gambit" for 6D Shoes

I saw that a while ago. I'll have to wait until my next trip out of town. Table min and table max are too close around here.

 

[zengrifter]

I usually Wong out at -4 Mentor TC, but I sometimes play all on shoes with 1 deck cuts, if the count doesn't become too abysmal. DD' once said something on the other board about not Wonging out of 1-deck cuts, by which I think he meant that there was no point in leaving if you knew where you wanted to be there for the next shoe.

Yes.
Does DD still post? zg