Lawrence Revere

[Raymondstyles]

I have been into blackjack for a while but I just recently started studying it on a serious level. I would like to know what people think of Lawrence Revere and his various systems. Although some of what he did is considered a little dated it appears to me to be an easier method. Additionally, according to several studies including http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/OSRating.htm (Archive copy) it also appears that his method is still supieror to most methods that I see people talking about.

If anyone uses any of Revere's methods I would like to know what you think of them. Also if you have used other methods I would like to know how they stack up against his. Thanks in advance.

Ray

 

[blb078]

i justed started getting serious about learning how to play blackjack the correct way about a month ago(instead of throwing my money away at the casinos). i bought revere's book "playing blackjack as a business" it's a little out dated, but i think it's an excellent book for a beginner to read, just to learn the very basics and basic counting strategies, it really simplies things and puts it in easy terms, w/plenty of charts, i also have the advacned plus minus booklet from revere ltd, it seems like it's just a litte more practice charts etc than are what in the main book. I just bough "professional blackjack" by wong, and i think every beginner should get those to books when learing BJ

 

[zengrifter]

PBJAAB is of no use for a counter today - totally out dated. zg

 

[neemo6]

One thing that I still like about pbjaab is the way of learning BS is done. The way its broken down makes it real easy for a newb wanting to learn bs. You have to alter the info though for multi deck play.

 

[wishin4idaho]

My Dad bought this book fifteen years ago when he decided he wanted to win at the casinos. To date he's won over $50,000, mostly by playing tournaments. He does count cards to some extent. I, myself, am about even playing the tables for the last 10 years...I haven't taken the time to learn how to "count". The book works for us...

 

[jack.jackson]

I have been into blackjack for a while but I just recently started studying it on a serious level. I would like to know what people think of Lawrence Revere and his various systems. Although some of what he did is considered a little dated it appears to me to be an easier method. Additionally, according to several studies including http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/OSRating.htm (Archive copy) it also appears that his method is still supieror to most methods that I see people talking about.

If anyone uses any of Revere's methods I would like to know what you think of them. Also if you have used other methods I would like to know how they stack up against his. Thanks in advance.

Ray

I really like reveres 14 count. And if i ever start backcounting i might go with his APC -4,2,3,3,4,3,2,0,-1,-3

 

[boneuphtoner]

The Revere Point Count (RPC) as described in PBJAAB is one of the stronger counts out there not requiring a side count of aces. AutoMonk's Ben Franklin count is a modernized version of this taylored for shoes. Regarding Revere's Advanced Point Count, Blackjack Attack seemed to indicate that the lower level AOII and Hi-OPT II were just as strong.

 

[jack.jackson]

The Revere Point Count (RPC) as described in PBJAAB is one of the stronger counts out there not requiring a side count of aces. AutoMonk's Ben Franklin count is a modernized version of this taylored for shoes. Regarding Revere's Advanced Point Count, Blackjack Attack seemed to indicate that the lower level AOII and Hi-OPT II were just as strong.

Your right. They are just as strong. Until you reach a 1:16 spread. At this point reveres APC will start to outperform A02 because of the high BC. And theres less emphasis on PE. Anything beyond 1:16 and Reveres APC will start to pull away. Ultimately maxing its OSR out at 99.70 compared to omegas max OSR of 98.89.
Interestingly enough however, omegas OSR on a flat bet is 97.49 compared to reveres APC OSR of 96.37. Conversely, thats because theres now more emphasis on PE.
This i why i would only use reveres APC for team play or tournament play. Or BC with mega spreads.

 

[moo321]

I've heard revere was pretty much a crook, and made most of his money hustling people.

 

[zengrifter]

Your right. They are just as strong. Until you reach a 1:16 spread. At this point reveres APC will start to outperform A02 because of the high BC. And theres less emphasis on PE. Anything beyond 1:16 and Reveres APC will start to pull away. Ultimately maxing its OSR out at 99.70 compared to omegas max OSR of 98.89.
Interestingly enough however, omegas OSR on a flat bet is 97.49 compared to reveres APC OSR of 96.37. Conversely, thats because theres now more emphasis on PE.
This i why i would only use reveres APC for team play or tournament play.

Important to note that NO BJ TEAM MEMBER of any seriousness uses RAPC, most use HiLo.
AND, NO SERIOUS TOURNAMENT PLAYER USES CARD-COUNTING, period. zg

 

[Cardcounter]

The greatest blackjack author of all time!

Thats how highly I think of Lawrence Reevere work even though most of his stuff is dated I can I adjust it in my mind to apply it todays situations.

 

[zengrifter]

Thats how highly I think of Lawrence Reevere work even though most of his stuff is dated I can I adjust it in my mind to apply it todays situations.

Which system, and Give us some examples of your 'adjustments'. zg

 

[eps6724]

AND, NO SERIOUS TOURNAMENT PLAYER USES CARD-COUNTING, period. zg

Wouldn't card-counting still be usefull for indice changes? I would think that any advantage, especially one already known-however slight-would be a benefit???

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Wouldn't card-counting still be usefull for indice changes? I would think that any advantage, especially one already known-however slight-would be a benefit???

Only a tiny benefit in rare instances. The reason is that you only care about doing better than everyone else at the table, and if an opponent got lucky, you need to get even luckier, hence all the doubling on stiffs and assorted weird plays. Maybe sidecounts of a few strategic cards would be more helpful that the counts we are familiar with.

 

[eps6724]

Only a tiny benefit in rare instances. The reason is that you only care about doing better than everyone else at the table, and if an opponent got lucky, you need to get even luckier, hence all the doubling on stiffs and assorted weird plays. Maybe sidecounts of a few strategic cards would be more helpful that the counts we are familiar with.

Oh, that makes sense, I guess. I suppose I'll worry more about it if i ever get to tournament play.

Thanks!