Help!
- Thread starter Rowena
- Start date
learning to count
Well-Known Member
Why would anyone want to suffer that much...
Uston's APC is difficult and was good for the single deck gamesof the time. WHy not HI-LO or even better learn the KO count. There is tons of research on both and they are good for single or multiple decks.
Uston's APC is difficult and was good for the single deck gamesof the time. WHy not HI-LO or even better learn the KO count. There is tons of research on both and they are good for single or multiple decks.
suicyco maniac
Well-Known Member
Uston APC
I've played the APC for several years but if I had it to do over again I would play something else... most likely the UBZ2.....just my two cents SM
I've played the APC for several years but if I had it to do over again I would play something else... most likely the UBZ2.....just my two cents SM
Shaggy18vw
Well-Known Member
Difficulty Level
There is a reason it is hard to find info about the APC on the internet. That count was popular when computers were programmed with punch cards. Look into a simpler count such as Hi-Low or KO. These counts will offer nearly all of the advantage gained by the APC with about half the effort. You will be able to find all sorts of info on these two counts. If all else fails you can buy a book on the Hi-low or KO. The books are Professional Blackjack and Knock-Out blackjack respectively. good Luck.
There is a reason it is hard to find info about the APC on the internet. That count was popular when computers were programmed with punch cards. Look into a simpler count such as Hi-Low or KO. These counts will offer nearly all of the advantage gained by the APC with about half the effort. You will be able to find all sorts of info on these two counts. If all else fails you can buy a book on the Hi-low or KO. The books are Professional Blackjack and Knock-Out blackjack respectively. good Luck.
Re: Too simple to be good
"Well, ok I was just looking for something a bit more advanced than Hi-Lo, which is what we're using now."
I think the reponders to your initial post inferred from it, as I did, that you did not currently know a counting system, as you stated that you had just decided to learn. Hi-Lo is quite effective for both beginning and experienced counters. I have often heard it said that it really doesn't matter much which counting system you use, as long as you use it well. If you are comfortable with true count conversions, and can use Hi-Lo quickly & effectively, there seems to be little reason to switch. If you want to get every tiny bit of advantage you can from the system you us, you could certainly consider a more advanced system, but without knowing your abilities and style of play, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to tell you what is best for you.
"It just seemed too simple to be /that/ good. Maybe I'll try KO then."
Hmmmm. Well, if Hi-Lo seems "too simple" to be good, you will really doubt the effectiveness of KO, as it is even more simple than Hi-Lo. Simplicity is the feature of KO that leads most people to use it. The thought process is that if you use an easier counting system, you will do so with fewer errors and be able to play longer before fatigue sets in. The argument is that the loss of EV from a less effective but simpler system is recouped through greater accuracy & extending your effective hours of play.
Moving from Hi-Lo to a more complicated system brings up the same issues. The system is only as effective as the user using it. Do you think you can you use a more complicated system accurately & quickly enough to realize its full effectiveness? Only if you can answer yes (as you look condescendingly at me for even asking the question) should you think of changing to a higher level system. Your initial post indicated a very low level of experience, so I would consider this carefully before you choose to go in this direction.
As for the systems themselves, I know in one of the many BJ books on my shelf, someone published a comparison of the betting correlations & playing efficiencies of the various counting systems, but I can't quickly locate it now, nor do I remember how reliable the source was. Perhaps one the brighter bulbs on the board can illuminate that for us
) My recollection is that KO (and perhaps any unbalanced system?) when compared to Hi-Lo has a slightly lower playing efficiency and a slightly higher betting correlation (which degrades the further you get from the pivot point. I seem to recall that it under-estimates in one direction, and over estimates in the other) Someone please correct me if I am wrong--it's been awhile since I considered making this switch myself and did all the research.
I think the thing that convinced me to stick with Hi-Lo was the fact that I was in the proces of putting alot of hours into practicing it, getting good at true count conversion, and researching and learning a set of Hi-Lo indices. I decided the change would make the work I had done pointless.
Hope my $0.02 is useful to you.
TW
"Well, ok I was just looking for something a bit more advanced than Hi-Lo, which is what we're using now."
I think the reponders to your initial post inferred from it, as I did, that you did not currently know a counting system, as you stated that you had just decided to learn. Hi-Lo is quite effective for both beginning and experienced counters. I have often heard it said that it really doesn't matter much which counting system you use, as long as you use it well. If you are comfortable with true count conversions, and can use Hi-Lo quickly & effectively, there seems to be little reason to switch. If you want to get every tiny bit of advantage you can from the system you us, you could certainly consider a more advanced system, but without knowing your abilities and style of play, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to tell you what is best for you.
"It just seemed too simple to be /that/ good. Maybe I'll try KO then."
Hmmmm. Well, if Hi-Lo seems "too simple" to be good, you will really doubt the effectiveness of KO, as it is even more simple than Hi-Lo. Simplicity is the feature of KO that leads most people to use it. The thought process is that if you use an easier counting system, you will do so with fewer errors and be able to play longer before fatigue sets in. The argument is that the loss of EV from a less effective but simpler system is recouped through greater accuracy & extending your effective hours of play.
Moving from Hi-Lo to a more complicated system brings up the same issues. The system is only as effective as the user using it. Do you think you can you use a more complicated system accurately & quickly enough to realize its full effectiveness? Only if you can answer yes (as you look condescendingly at me for even asking the question) should you think of changing to a higher level system. Your initial post indicated a very low level of experience, so I would consider this carefully before you choose to go in this direction.
As for the systems themselves, I know in one of the many BJ books on my shelf, someone published a comparison of the betting correlations & playing efficiencies of the various counting systems, but I can't quickly locate it now, nor do I remember how reliable the source was. Perhaps one the brighter bulbs on the board can illuminate that for us
) My recollection is that KO (and perhaps any unbalanced system?) when compared to Hi-Lo has a slightly lower playing efficiency and a slightly higher betting correlation (which degrades the further you get from the pivot point. I seem to recall that it under-estimates in one direction, and over estimates in the other) Someone please correct me if I am wrong--it's been awhile since I considered making this switch myself and did all the research.I think the thing that convinced me to stick with Hi-Lo was the fact that I was in the proces of putting alot of hours into practicing it, getting good at true count conversion, and researching and learning a set of Hi-Lo indices. I decided the change would make the work I had done pointless.
Hope my $0.02 is useful to you.
TW
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Try Hi-Opt II
You'll need to learn to sidecount Aces too, but once you get it down, you'll have a system that will take you all the way from weekend counter to full-time professional, in any type of game. It's easier than APC and has virtually the same power.
You'll need to learn to sidecount Aces too, but once you get it down, you'll have a system that will take you all the way from weekend counter to full-time professional, in any type of game. It's easier than APC and has virtually the same power.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Not that hard
I use letters to keep track of the aces. You use the ace count to modify the True Count when it comes to betting, and the standard formula is to raise the TC by 2 for every extra ace-per-deck left, and decrease it by 2 for every ace-per-deck that the remaining cards are short. There are a lot of people here who use this count and I'm sure everybody has their own tricks.
There are these things called multiparameter sidecounts where you use the ace count to modify certain playing decisions too. For example, when doubling on 9 or 10, or splitting 10's, having a lot of aces left is beneficial. But multiparameter counts are for the most advanced players and you want to be counting and playing a winning game before you try to incorporate them.
As a shoe player the part I like most about Hi-Opt II is it's great insurance correlation. Shoe players put out some huge bets, and having the most accurate insurance information possible will save you a lot of money in the long run.
I use letters to keep track of the aces. You use the ace count to modify the True Count when it comes to betting, and the standard formula is to raise the TC by 2 for every extra ace-per-deck left, and decrease it by 2 for every ace-per-deck that the remaining cards are short. There are a lot of people here who use this count and I'm sure everybody has their own tricks.
There are these things called multiparameter sidecounts where you use the ace count to modify certain playing decisions too. For example, when doubling on 9 or 10, or splitting 10's, having a lot of aces left is beneficial. But multiparameter counts are for the most advanced players and you want to be counting and playing a winning game before you try to incorporate them.
As a shoe player the part I like most about Hi-Opt II is it's great insurance correlation. Shoe players put out some huge bets, and having the most accurate insurance information possible will save you a lot of money in the long run.
Uston APC
I'm pretty sure that the Uston APC system is spelled out completely (the count, the index numbers, the Ace side count, using the side count to modify your bets) in the book Million Dollar Blackjack, by Ken Uston. My copy is out on semi-permanent loan, though, so I can't confirm my recollection.
My guess is that no such comprehensive discussion is available anywhere on the Web.
Having said that, I'll concur with the other people who said that you shouldn't switch. Stick with High-Low. Expend your energy on getting a bigger spread down, not on trying to adopt a more complicated system.
I'm pretty sure that the Uston APC system is spelled out completely (the count, the index numbers, the Ace side count, using the side count to modify your bets) in the book Million Dollar Blackjack, by Ken Uston. My copy is out on semi-permanent loan, though, so I can't confirm my recollection.
My guess is that no such comprehensive discussion is available anywhere on the Web.
Having said that, I'll concur with the other people who said that you shouldn't switch. Stick with High-Low. Expend your energy on getting a bigger spread down, not on trying to adopt a more complicated system.
stick to simplicity
Stick to simplicity Rowena.. just because Uston's counts are more complex then Hi-Lo or KO doesnt mean its more accurate or more effective. I suspect Uston came out with those counts because he had a ego and wanted to prove he can do things harder then other people did.. stick to the simple version of Hi-Lo with bigger spreads or check out the KO system (the website is www.koblackjack.com (Archive copy)).. as far as i know KO is more accurate then Hi-Lo because you do not need to keep a true count only a running count.. and a true count is just "estimated" not necessarily 100% when you come out with the true count from the running count.. <shrugs> .. thats my .03 cents in lol jkk
Stick to simplicity Rowena.. just because Uston's counts are more complex then Hi-Lo or KO doesnt mean its more accurate or more effective. I suspect Uston came out with those counts because he had a ego and wanted to prove he can do things harder then other people did.. stick to the simple version of Hi-Lo with bigger spreads or check out the KO system (the website is www.koblackjack.com (Archive copy)).. as far as i know KO is more accurate then Hi-Lo because you do not need to keep a true count only a running count.. and a true count is just "estimated" not necessarily 100% when you come out with the true count from the running count.. <shrugs> .. thats my .03 cents in lol jkk
mark goodman
New Member
Hi-Opt II and RPC for betting
How would you go about using Hi-Opt II and RPC for betting?
I would appreciate someone explaining this to me.
I'm new to cardcounter's.com and also to blackjak, so hey everyone.
From what I have read Hi-opt II is the way to go if your willing to put the time and energy to learn it. Would this be safe to say?
I do appreciate the inside.
Also, how do you use the Ace side count? Are there different ways to use an Ace side count?
Thanks for your time
Mark
How would you go about using Hi-Opt II and RPC for betting?
I would appreciate someone explaining this to me.
I'm new to cardcounter's.com and also to blackjak, so hey everyone.
From what I have read Hi-opt II is the way to go if your willing to put the time and energy to learn it. Would this be safe to say?
I do appreciate the inside.
Also, how do you use the Ace side count? Are there different ways to use an Ace side count?
Thanks for your time
Mark
Sonny
Well-Known Member
Hi-Opt II and RPC for betting
> How would you go about using Hi-Opt II and RPC for betting?
All card counting systems work in the same way: When the count is positive you have the advantage over the casino. When you have the advantage you should bet more money (or sit down and start playing). The higher the count is the more of an advantage you have, therefore the more you should bet.
Obviously there should be constraints on your betting schedule. If you have a $4000 bankroll you should not throw out $200 bets at a +3 true count. Overbetting your bankroll is a sure-fire way to go broke. I think most players are comfortable limiting their highest bet to about 1% (or less) of their total bankroll. That means that you might want to use $40 as your top bet, but you should always calculate your bets to maintain an acceptable risk-of-ruin. Any good BJ book or software will help you with this crucial part.
A typical bet spread might look like this:
Single-Deck:
< +1 - $10
= +1 - $20
= +2 - $30
> +2 - $40
Double-Deck:
<=+1 - $5
= +2 - $10
= +3 - $20
= +4 - $30
< +4 - $40
Six-Deck:
<=+1 - Don't Play
= +2 - $10
= +3 - $20
= +4 - $30
< +4 - $40
Of course, you would want to adjust these schedules in order to increase your earnings while maintaining an acceptable level of risk. Both are personal decisions that will vary from player to player. Again, any good book or software will help you with this.
> From what I have read Hi-opt II is the way to go if your willing to put
> the time and energy to learn it. Would this be safe to say?
The Hi-Opt II is a very good system. I use it myself. However, it is not a good system to start with because it is very difficult to learn. I would suggest starting with Hi-Low until you get enough casino experience. This all assumes that you know Basic Strategy in your sleep.
There are many other good systems like Zen that are just as powerful but simpler to use. This might be another consideration. By the time you are ready to graduate to a more complicated system you will already know which one is best for you.
> Also, how do you use the Ace side count? Are there different ways to
> use an Ace side count?
The way most players use it is to keep track of how rich the deck is. If you have seen 13 cards and no aces have come out yet then the rest of the deck has one extra ace in it. You would then add +2 to your running count before you calculate your betting TC. Just don't forget to subtract it again once you start making our playing decisions!
Another way would be to keep a side count where 3&6 = -1 and the aces = +2. When you add these two counts together you would have the Revere Point Count for betting and the Hi-Opt II for playing. This is much more work than it is worth in my opinion. I use the above "ace-density" method and save my extra brainpower for shuffle-tracking which can be much more useful.
-Sonny-
> How would you go about using Hi-Opt II and RPC for betting?
All card counting systems work in the same way: When the count is positive you have the advantage over the casino. When you have the advantage you should bet more money (or sit down and start playing). The higher the count is the more of an advantage you have, therefore the more you should bet.
Obviously there should be constraints on your betting schedule. If you have a $4000 bankroll you should not throw out $200 bets at a +3 true count. Overbetting your bankroll is a sure-fire way to go broke. I think most players are comfortable limiting their highest bet to about 1% (or less) of their total bankroll. That means that you might want to use $40 as your top bet, but you should always calculate your bets to maintain an acceptable risk-of-ruin. Any good BJ book or software will help you with this crucial part.
A typical bet spread might look like this:
Single-Deck:
< +1 - $10
= +1 - $20
= +2 - $30
> +2 - $40
Double-Deck:
<=+1 - $5
= +2 - $10
= +3 - $20
= +4 - $30
< +4 - $40
Six-Deck:
<=+1 - Don't Play
= +2 - $10
= +3 - $20
= +4 - $30
< +4 - $40
Of course, you would want to adjust these schedules in order to increase your earnings while maintaining an acceptable level of risk. Both are personal decisions that will vary from player to player. Again, any good book or software will help you with this.
> From what I have read Hi-opt II is the way to go if your willing to put
> the time and energy to learn it. Would this be safe to say?
The Hi-Opt II is a very good system. I use it myself. However, it is not a good system to start with because it is very difficult to learn. I would suggest starting with Hi-Low until you get enough casino experience. This all assumes that you know Basic Strategy in your sleep.
There are many other good systems like Zen that are just as powerful but simpler to use. This might be another consideration. By the time you are ready to graduate to a more complicated system you will already know which one is best for you.
> Also, how do you use the Ace side count? Are there different ways to
> use an Ace side count?
The way most players use it is to keep track of how rich the deck is. If you have seen 13 cards and no aces have come out yet then the rest of the deck has one extra ace in it. You would then add +2 to your running count before you calculate your betting TC. Just don't forget to subtract it again once you start making our playing decisions!
Another way would be to keep a side count where 3&6 = -1 and the aces = +2. When you add these two counts together you would have the Revere Point Count for betting and the Hi-Opt II for playing. This is much more work than it is worth in my opinion. I use the above "ace-density" method and save my extra brainpower for shuffle-tracking which can be much more useful.
-Sonny-
Automatic Monkey
Banned
The Ace sidecount
In order to get the full 0.99 BC you have to balance the Aces against the 3's and 6's (Zen Grifter knows all the deal on this) which is something I've never tried but it sounds difficult. And all you really end up with is RPC. You can do the same thing with HO1 and balance the Aces against the 2's and 7's.
The thing is that in the shoe games PE isn't worth nearly as much as BC. So I think you're better off counting with RPC, and as you progress use your sidecounts to adjust your play and insurance decisions, if you want. And if you bugger up the sidecount on a shoe, you are left with straight RPC which gives up very little to HO2+A anyway. In contrast, if you are counting HO2 and you bugger up your Ace sidecount, you're in trouble.
In order to get the full 0.99 BC you have to balance the Aces against the 3's and 6's (Zen Grifter knows all the deal on this) which is something I've never tried but it sounds difficult. And all you really end up with is RPC. You can do the same thing with HO1 and balance the Aces against the 2's and 7's.
The thing is that in the shoe games PE isn't worth nearly as much as BC. So I think you're better off counting with RPC, and as you progress use your sidecounts to adjust your play and insurance decisions, if you want. And if you bugger up the sidecount on a shoe, you are left with straight RPC which gives up very little to HO2+A anyway. In contrast, if you are counting HO2 and you bugger up your Ace sidecount, you're in trouble.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
The Ace sidecount
> In order to get the full 0.99 BC you have to balance the Aces against the
> 3's and 6's...
I got the .99 BC directly from Griffin's book. I thought his calculations for the gain from adding the ace sidecount were using the ace-density method, not the additional running count method. Am I wrong? Anyone have it handy?
I should buy a second copy of that book to keep at work with me. Heck, there should be a pocket-edition!
That's a GREAT point about the RPC. Even if you mess it up you're still better off!
-Sonny-
P.S.- Lets see how long it takes the Grifter to chastise us for recommending the ace-density method.
> In order to get the full 0.99 BC you have to balance the Aces against the
> 3's and 6's...
I got the .99 BC directly from Griffin's book. I thought his calculations for the gain from adding the ace sidecount were using the ace-density method, not the additional running count method. Am I wrong? Anyone have it handy?
I should buy a second copy of that book to keep at work with me. Heck, there should be a pocket-edition!
That's a GREAT point about the RPC. Even if you mess it up you're still better off!
-Sonny-
P.S.- Lets see how long it takes the Grifter to chastise us for recommending the ace-density method.