How to devise your own count?

[jack.jackson]

I was wondering if anybody knew how to devise your own count? Where to get started and/or how to do it.

I devised system tags for one that ive never seen before, and believe it could be extremely powerful! For 1and2D. Check this out!

(A) 2 3 4 5 6 (7 8 9) X
(0) +1+2+2+2+1 (000) -2

 

[EasyRhino]

Eek, wouldn't you want to take account of aces? They're usually pretty important.

You might want to consider getting Theory of Blackjack. I haven't gotten through all of it, and I don't understand much of it, but it does seem to discuss fundamental theoretical stuff in parts.

 

[jack.jackson]

Eek, wouldn't you want to take account of aces? They're usually pretty important.

You might want to consider getting Theory of Blackjack. I haven't gotten through all of it, and I don't understand much of it, but it does seem to discuss fundamental theoretical stuff in parts.

I didnt display (2) for A's for a reason? But your right, i guess i should of!
[+8][-8][2]
Believe it or not, i actually came up with this count looking at 1 3 5 7/ -2 -4 -6 different ways. Counting the middle cards in a single block, correctly, is a powerful weapon!

Ya, i got plans for "that" book!


_______________________________________________________-

 

[zengrifter]

Either use a sim program like QFIT's -or- you can simply use HO2 indices, which would work fine. zg

 

[SystemsTrader]

Thats the BRH-3 (Brett Harris), you've hit upon - unbalanced, true-counted, ace side-count. Probably the best performing system there is, in sims (without muli-params). Trojan w/7/8 multi-params would still be stronger.

As for developing your indices - either use a sim program like QFIT's -or- you can simply use HO2 indices, adding +4 to each index to equalize the imbalance. zg

Why is the six undervalued in this count and only given a tag of +1 instead of plus +2?

 

[Dyepaintball12]

I was thinking exactly what Systemstrader said.

Wouldn't the 6 be worth just as much as the 5? and if not I would think it is definitely worth at least as much as the 3, which you gave a higher value.

 

[ScottH]

IMO there is no reason to invent your own system. No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I was wondering if anybody knew how to devise your own count? Where to get started and/or how to do it.

I devised system tags for one that ive never seen before, and believe it could be extremely powerful! For 1and2D. Check this out!

(A) 2 3 4 5 6 (7 8 9) X
(0) +1+2+2+2+1 (000) -2

It looks good, if you're willing to incorporate an ace sidecount. And if you are going to sidecount aces, might as well use HO2 or AO2. Or Uston APC for that matter.

Step 1: Using CVData, run a sim using Basic Strategy and your system tags. See at what count you end up with an advantage of about 2%. Don't forget about the sidecount.

Step 2: Using CVData and your max bet count you just discovered, do risk-averse index generation for all games you are planning on applying the count to, I-18 and Fab 4.

Step 3: Run a sim using a flat bet and the playing indices you just derived.

Step 4: Using the advantages at each count you just discovered, create a spread.

Step 5: Simulate some real-world games using your indices and spread. Compare your results to the same games using published and familiar systems like HO2, High-Low, RPC, etc. This is the painful part- you may discover that your new system does absolutely nothing better than something that already exists.

 

[jack.jackson]

I was thinking exactly what Systemstrader said.

Wouldn't the 6 be worth just as much as the 5? and if not I would think it is definitely worth at least as much as the 3, which you gave a higher value.

I would have to say they are for betting purposes, but since 16vsX is our most important index play, tagging the 6 at +1 will (I believe) enhance our pe.

But so we dont lose any on betting, a secondary count of -2A vs 2,6+1

Its also possible to sc a's separately for playing decisions.

And then imagine counting 678's either all in single block. Or all them individually

 

[zengrifter]

But so we dont lose any on betting, a secondary count of -2A vs 2,6+1

Make that -2Av2/7+1. And the HO2 indices will work JUST FINE! zg

 

[Xenophon]

I was wondering if anybody knew how to devise your own count? Where to get started and/or how to do it.

I devised system tags for one that ive never seen before, and believe it could be extremely powerful! For 1and2D. Check this out!

(A) 2 3 4 5 6 (7 8 9) X
(0) +1+2+2+2+1 (000) -2

SmartCards software calculations are as follows: BC/IC/PE (With Ace side count for betting purposes)


Hi-Opt II

.98/.92/.67

Yours

.97/.89/.62

Hi-Opt I

.95/.87/.61

 

[zengrifter]

SmartCards software calculations are as follows: BC/IC/PE (With Ace side count for betting purposes)


Hi-Opt II

.98/.92/.67

Yours

.97/.89/.62

Hi-Opt I

.95/.87/.61

Once he adds the 7s/8s multi-params his PE will blow away HO-2. BUT on that basis he should use a compromised (-1) Ace value and no Ace betting count. zg

 

[jack.jackson]

Once he adds the 7s/8s multi-params his PE will blow away HO-2. BUT on that basis he should use a compromised (-1) Ace value and no Ace betting count. zg

A big thanks to all, for your opinions, knowledge and experience.

First i would like to address the issue of the sim results. Wont a secondary count produce a higher be. if a secondary count is used instead of the conventional ace side count? Regardless wether it be the 2/6 or 2/7 vs ace.

Is it possible, to see which of the two, would actually produce better results?
If so, xenophon, if your willing and able, would you?

Im not exactly sure what you mean zen, by a no Ace betting count?

Last and most importantly. Wouldnt it be true that the higher you raise your pe. the higher your be. will be. Dont they work as a team?



________________________________________________________

In reference, to zen and sonny, this i tribute to them for their thousands of responses. In that we always expect them to have a answer for us, not matter how bizarre the question. To me, seems like a lot tougher job than most of us realize! Heres to ya

In reference to

 

[jack.jackson]

SmartCards software calculations are as follows: BC/IC/PE (With Ace side count for betting purposes)


Hi-Opt II

.98/.92/.67

Yours

.97/.89/.62

Hi-Opt I

.95/.87/.61

The traditional ace sc may give me a be.of .97 But if i use a secondary Avs2/3 its 98.2 or Avs2/7 its98.4 Then if you sc 7or9's its 99.0 But, if you use a secondary count of Avs2/6 and sc 7 AND 9's your be. is 1.




# No. 51 http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/hundred.htm

 

[jack.jackson]

I was thinking exactly what Systemstrader said.

Wouldn't the 6 be worth just as much as the 5? and if not I would think it is definitely worth at least as much as the 3, which you gave a higher value.

Upon further research ive found this to be absolutely true! Thank you, for my mistake. what a crucial mistake.

(A) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X

(0) +1+1+2+2+2(000) -2 Secondary count -2A/2&3-1

 

[jack.jackson]

I was thinking exactly what Systemstrader said.

Wouldn't the 6 be worth just as much as the 5? and if not I would think it is definitely worth at least as much as the 3, which you gave a higher value.

Upon further research ive found this to be absolutely true! Thank you, for my mistake. what a crucial mistake.

(A) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X

(0) +1+1+2+2+2(000) -2 Secondary count -2A/2&3+1 oopps!

 

[Xenophon]

Upon further research ive found this to be absolutely true! Thank you, for my mistake. what a crucial mistake.

(A) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X

(0) +1+1+2+2+2(000) -2 Secondary count -2A/2&3+1 oopps!

I'm not sure where you're going with your side counts on this, but if you change the 6 to +2,

0+1+2+2+2+1 0 0 0 -2 (balanced)

to

0+1+2+2+2+2 0 0 0 -2 (unbalanced)

You've now got an unbalanced system. The original count you posted was balanced.

Do you plan on playing mostly single deck?

 

[jack.jackson]

I'm not sure where you're going with your side counts on this, but if you change the 6 to +2,

0+1+2+2+2+1 0 0 0 -2 (balanced)

to

0+1+2+2+2+2 0 0 0 -2 (unbalanced)

You've now got an unbalanced system. The original count you posted was balanced.

Do you plan on playing mostly single deck?

Excuse me for not being more specific! Please look at the count above.

0+1+1+2+2+2 000 -2 I, added 1 to the 6 and subtracted 1 from the 3

 

[Xenophon]

Excuse me for not being more specific! Please look at the count above.

0+1+1+2+2+2 000 -2 I, added 1 to the 6 and subtracted 1 from the 3

This count has:

BC/IC/PE

.97/.89/.63

As far as side counting, I haven't spent much time analyzing side-counts. I know they can really improve all three figures significantly on paper, but whether or not most people can accurately deploy them in a casino, may be a different story. You may have seen this article http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/sdcnt.htm where Arnold Snyder says basically the same thing. Now, if you're playing lots of single and double deck, and you can play such a count accurately, it does have lots of value. I did the same thing you're doing a while back, and it is fun to try and develop a new count, but the truth is the ones that are published are pretty much the most practical.

One thing to remember, is that there's times when your best game may not be single or double deck, and a multi parameter count just won't be of much value. If you get really good at a single parameter, two level count, such as Zen, or Mentor, or RPC (I would go with Zen), you can swap easier between single and multi-deck games. Zen really does extremely well with any number of decks- so does Mentor (but you have to count nines also). I think this is why Arnold calls Zen, "The best practical count." Now, if your plan is to always play in Reno and Wendover while those gems last, definitely do it.

 

[jack.jackson]

This count has:

BC/IC/PE

.97/.89/.63

As far as side counting, I haven't spent much time analyzing side-counts. I know they can really improve all three figures significantly on paper, but whether or not most people can accurately deploy them in a casino, may be a different story. You may have seen this article http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/sdcnt.htm where Arnold Snyder says basically the same thing. Now, if you're playing lots of single and double deck, and you can play such a count accurately, it does have lots of value. I did the same thing you're doing a while back, and it is fun to try and develop a new count, but the truth is the ones that are published are pretty much the most practical.

One thing to remember, is that there's times when your best game may not be single or double deck, and a multi parameter count just won't be of much value. If you get really good at a single parameter, two level count, such as Zen, or Mentor, or RPC (I would go with Zen), you can swap easier between single and multi-deck games. Zen really does extremely well with any number of decks- so does Mentor (but you have to count nines also). I think this is why Arnold calls Zen, "The best practical count." Now, if your plan is to always play in Reno and Wendover while those gems last, definitely do it.

Well said, and you could'nt be further from the truth! Its also one thing to sc 7,8,9's then its another to memorize a chart of superfluous numbers.

I actually mastered the A02, about a year ago after i turned a 1,000 into 1,000,000 sitting at my kitchen table in a little over 9 months,starting at 10-100 and parlaying at 20,000 to 25-200. etc. it was a gratifying but mind-numbing experience. However, ive been playing for over 10 years and it was 2D game with ideal rules-.37 and conditions.
With the A02 i sc 8&A's and valued the aces at 2.5 each.
I once hit 7 double blackjacks in one nite!

But i can personally tell ya the A02 falls short in multiple deck unless you use a secondary count. I would definitely go with zen for MD its pretty much the same as A02 but the reckoned ace makes a big difference!

About my count. I discovered last night that its already a count #37. I wish there was a way to ascertain whos count it is? I would probably buy the book.

As far as the 7,8,9's im up for the challenge, i at least want to say ive tried it. And im gonna try to count them individualy. Counting the 7's as 100 the 8's as 10 and the 9's as 1. So after 1/2 deck has been played and my middle count is 104 im 1 seven short, 2 eights short, and 2 nines tall.[2,2,2] Then hopefully im capable of making necessary adjustments.
I also realize that an excessive shortage of these cards would actually justify doubling 12vs5 and 6. By how much i dont know.Im just dying to make this play.


One last thing xen if you ever get bored could you run a sim of this unbalanced half count. If its possible of course? 0 1, 1, 1.5 2 1.5,000 -1.5
ace[2] Of course dont feel obligated.Thanxs.