Hi-Lo IRC

Dyepaintball12

Dyepaintball12

Well-Known Member
Hey all.

I have been using the simple Red 7 Count, which dos not use a True Count and instead uses an IRC depending on the amount of decks you are playing.

I am switching to Hi-Lo, and my question is, do you just use the true count from the beginning or is there also an IRC?


Thanks,

David
 
R

Renzey

Well-Known Member
Dyepaintball12 said:
I am switching from simple red 7 to Hi-Lo, and my question is, do you just use the true count from the beginning or is there also an IRC?
Click to expand...
With any balanced count such as Hi/Lo is, your IRC with any number of decks is always "0". And yes, you go by the true count right from the beginning.
 
Dyepaintball12

Dyepaintball12

Well-Known Member
I read recently that for every +1 TC you go up, your advantage goes up .5%.

That sounds ridiculous to me. Is it true?
 
blackjack avenger

blackjack avenger

Well-Known Member
To Dyepaintball12

Roughly .5 per TC, it depends on the rules. Also, you must subtract the house advantage to determine your advantage.
 
G

Guynoire

Well-Known Member
Dyepaintball12 said:
I read recently that for every +1 TC you go up, your advantage goes up .5%.

That sounds ridiculous to me. Is it true?
Click to expand...
Why is that so ridiculous? In Red 7 you divide the running count past the pivot by 2X the decks remaining to get your true edge.

True count=2X true edge, so 1/2% per true count is the same estimate you use for Red 7.
 
D

Dopple

Well-Known Member
When discussing counts in general I assume it is safe to consider a count under Ustons APC (12232210-3) to be equal to what others call a true count although he divides by half decks as opposed to full decks?

If Uston recommends betting one less chip than the true count in his book this would not seem to equate with Kelly betting with one betting a percentage of ones bankroll equal to the advantage in percent on the hand but I suppose he does not necessarily suggest any equality to these two schools of thought. I think perhaps that is why half kelly wagering is spoken of more frequently.

So based on Kelly after a 5 card round in SD with a running count of 2 and no aces out you should be at a good full point advantage which would justify 1/2% of a 2k bankroll or a $10 bet to remain within acceptable ROR terms?
 
Dyepaintball12

Dyepaintball12

Well-Known Member
Well I mean people say counting on your down u really can only expect up to a 2% edge I thought.

With this it seems like u could get upwards of 4% really
 
blackjack avenger

blackjack avenger

Well-Known Member
On Your Edge

There are many factors to determine your overall advantage:
The game.
Your count.
Your indices.
Your style of play.

An edge of around .5% to 1.5% is what I have generally read and found myself. Perhaps it can be taken toward 2% but I doubt 4% with traditional methods.
 
Dyepaintball12

Dyepaintball12

Well-Known Member
Standard 8 deck game, 75-80% pen, S17, DA2, DAS, NLS

You would start at a .5% disadvantage, so yea maybe ur right cause you would need like a TC of 9 to get 4% and that seems unlikely.
 
blackjack avenger

blackjack avenger

Well-Known Member
On Advantages

I was referring to your total advantage versus a game. It is possible to get higher advantages at certain times, but they happen rarely as you pointed out.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
QFIT said:
At http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount2.htm the advantage at each count is in the first chart and advantage increase per count in the second. The .5% estimate is very rough. And this is just one set of circumstances. The second chart at http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount3.htm shows the advantage increases per count using different numbers of indexes. And this is just one of the variables.
Click to expand...
Why would a +13 count yield significantly less gain per count than a +12 or +14 count count? zg

 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Why would a +13 count yield significantly less gain per count than a +12 or +14 count count? zg
​
Click to expand...


Three possibilities:

A.) Not enough hands seen at a TC of +13 making for a large standard error. 0.016% of the hands were +13. This sim was 10 billion hands meaning 1.6 million at +13.

B.) Odd subset. In order to reach unusual counts; sometimes unusual sets of cards must exist in the unseen set. This can cause some interesting (but meaningless) aberrations at weird counts.

C.) Since these sims do NOT use exact cards remaining in the TC calculation; very high or low counts may require an unusual set of penetrations for the count to exist. In this case, there was a very large dip in TC frequencies going from +12 to +13 - but not from +13 to +14.

As I've said many times; BJ is not linear.​
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
QFIT said:
...
C.) Since these sims do NOT use exact cards remaining in the TC calculation; very high or low counts may require an unusual set of penetrations for the count to exist. In this case, there was a very large dip in TC frequencies going from +12 to +13 - but not from +13 to +14...
Click to expand...
Yeah, in my experience that's usually a quantization problem due to pen when you see something weird like that. That's why when I'm researching theory I always use exact-card pen simulations, makes for nicer and less ambiguous data.
 
D

Dopple

Well-Known Member
I have a decent understanding of the math behind the game but this passage from Don Schlesingers Blackjack Attack pg. 259 where he quotes Griffin says:
"The player's advantage "reaches its zenith (almost 13%) when 73% of the cards are tens." Thus more tens than 73% lowers the player advantge.

I am not trying to start a number battle here but just want to sort out an advantage question that I find perplexing. I could almost run manual sims on paper or at home or a table using special decks made up of 73% tens and see if it would pan out to the above mentioned 13%.

I think I have a good question here. I am off track somewhere?
 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
Dopple said:
I have a decent understanding of the math behind the game but this passage from Don Schlesingers Blackjack Attack pg. 259 where he quotes Griffin says:
"The player's advantage "reaches its zenith (almost 13%) when 73% of the cards are tens." Thus more tens than 73% lowers the player advantge.
Click to expand...
Which edition? I can't find that quote. It's certainly possible - but not related. Also keep in mind that Griffin concentrated on single deck and Ace-neutral strategies.

Dopple said:
I am not trying to start a number battle here but just want to sort out an advantage question that I find perplexing. I could almost run manual sims on paper or at home or a table using special decks made up of 73% tens and see if it would pan out to the above mentioned 13%.

I think I have a good question here. I am off track somewhere?
Click to expand...
Well, special decks are useless and manual sims would require a bit of time:) Note the sim was 10 Billion rounds.
 
D

Dopple

Well-Known Member
The edition is the first, Copyright 1997.

I saw your graphs and those look more inline with my understanding of the advantage.

It just seems to make sense to me that to maintain a fairly smooth ROR throughout a session or a trip that increasing wagers in tune to advantage increases would make sense to me.

What alarmed me was that I thought I read that advantage was never over 2 or 4 but then the writer went on to clarify that he meant total overall advantage and I think that makes sense especially based on the fact that you spend so little time at those very high counts.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
davidpom said:
Hi there, you can read my article on the hi-lo system (which will hopefully answer all of your questions) here:

http://beatthecasinos.blogspot.com/2007/12/blackjack-card-counting-hi-lo-system.html (Archive copy)

You might also find this one useful reading:

http://beatthecasinos.blogspot.com/2008/02/card-shuffler-friend-or-enemy.html (Archive copy)

Let me know your thoughts! Am happy to discuss further.
Click to expand...
David, start a new post and properly introduce yourself, mate. zg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top