J.Noir Count

metronome

Well-Known Member
Any one know about this. I've never seen it. Is it known by another name ?
Probably a basic level two count ??

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2

BC = .89 PE = .49
 

LIB

Active Member
I've never heard of it, and for a good reason. If you were just musing, ignore the next part. I don't mean to patronize you. If you weren't this is my two cent.

Even with the tag value of -2, it's still weaker than Hi-Lo. Not assigning neutral tag and assigning 5 and 6 as the same as all the other + cards makes assessment blurry not to mention compromised PE; PE is even less than .50. I haven't ran the numbers, but I would imagine that this count system would be reasonably reliable in recognizing situations to avoid whereas it would not be in recognizing opportunities. Consequently, this system is a moot for those who are not wonging out. Insurance correlation may be high, but considering the frequency, the whole system seems like either a prototype or a futile effort. I fail to notice any competitive advantage this system has over any other widely used systems in any way what-so-ever including but not limited to the ease of use. Personally, I wouldn't feel so dandy if I allowed my name to be associated with something like this.
 

Tenafly

New Member
Jacques Noir published his book Casino Holiday in 1968,It included the ten count among others which he called the one-two count.Book is a collectors item.
 

metronome

Well-Known Member
Yes, musing, I've run no analyticals of any sort on this. The book is a classic ?...and out of print no doubt.
 
LIB said:
I've never heard of it, and for a good reason. If you were just musing, ignore the next part. I don't mean to patronize you. If you weren't this is my two cent.

Even with the tag value of -2, it's still weaker than Hi-Lo. Not assigning neutral tag and assigning 5 and 6 as the same as all the other + cards makes assessment blurry not to mention compromised PE; PE is even less than .50. I haven't ran the numbers, but I would imagine that this count system would be reasonably reliable in recognizing situations to avoid whereas it would not be in recognizing opportunities. Consequently, this system is a moot for those who are not wonging out. Insurance correlation may be high, but considering the frequency, the whole system seems like either a prototype or a futile effort. I fail to notice any competitive advantage this system has over any other widely used systems in any way what-so-ever including but not limited to the ease of use. Personally, I wouldn't feel so dandy if I allowed my name to be associated with something like this.
I agree, it's also heavily unbalanced and it's not clear how that is compensated for.
 
Top