Of waning 1Ds and sidecounts...

zengrifter

Banned
... were I to specialize, I personally wouldn't care too much about the extra gain to be had by playing an Ace-nuetral system or CDBS or 7s multiparam BECAUSE with a 1-4+ spread the SCORE is ALREADY through the roof (assuming quality 1D), though if I were limited to a 1-2 spread that stuff would come in handy - now, if that were the case or I was otherwise motivated to utilize a semi-sophisticated side count in combination with a semi-sophisticated primary count, I would combine an Ace-compromised level-2, ala ZEN, UBZ, TH(does he have one?), with a 7s bivaluate (or perhaps 7s/8s as a block) - I suppose that once doing it with 1D that 2Ds would be not harder and equally rewarding.

Notwithstanding the fact that I played HO2 w/As and 7s sidecounts for years and I remain unconvinced of the value of that degree of sophistication in light of the limitations of the statistical model.

Possibly the top-echelon of level-2, Ace-neutral, that could be combined with the 7s bivaluate would be the BRH-2 UBTC-type system.

Keep in mind that the # of quality 1D games throughout the world is waning fast - endangered species list -and- that a mediocre 1D game is a TIME WASTE or otherise requires an obnoxious spread, thus negating the effort of employing those additional sidecount steps.

FURTHER, if the additional complexity slows your play by 15% you have gained NOTHING, better to keep it simpler and increase your speed by 20%.

LASTLY, just being aware of As,7s,5s,etc. and knowing that your brain misses nothing, and then going with 'the force' whenever you at the "wide-border/coin-toss" decision areas can be more powerful than a rigid sidecount scheme (not proven, its a theory, I should name it).

zg (future author of 'MetaGambling - Transcending the Statistical Myth!)
 

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
Ian Andersen named it

LASTLY, just being aware of As,7s,5s,etc. and knowing that your brain misses nothing, and then going with 'the force' whenever you at the "wide-border/coin-toss" decision areas can be more powerful than a rigid sidecount scheme (not proven, its a theory, I should name it).​

He called this "soft focus." I don't recommend playing by intuition unless you have a BJ practice program available that will analyze your decisions comapred to perfect play, and can prove you are doing better than random guessing. I'll look into the only one that might have this capability and report back later.
 

zengrifter

Banned
Brad, funny you should ask... but The Mayor already shot down my idea to "isolate the elusive BJ capital-flux FRACTAL!" zg
 

zengrifter

Banned
Re: Ian Andersen named it

He called this "soft focus." I don't recommend playing by intuition unless you have a BJ practice program available that will analyze your decisions comapred to perfect play, and can prove you are doing better than random guessing.
---------------------

Its NOT necessary to do better than random guess, random guess at those junctures loses nothing. zg
 

zengrifter

Banned
Re: Ian Andersen named IN FACT...

... it is the statistical 'non-effect' that these wide-border intuitive guesses will cause that releives the practioner of an over-reliance on precision index#s (which do NOT exist anyway). zg
 
Top