Red 7 Count

[Gramazeka]

Red7= BRH 0

http://www.bjrnet.com/catalog/BRH_history.htm

 

[Renzey]

If you use R7 and stuggle with the negative counts, just start at 8 for a 6 deck shoe. Ramp up point will be 20, and if the count goes below zero it's time to find a reason to take a break.

If you use "20" RC as your "key count", starting at "8" would make "20" equal to +2.0 TC. Better to use "9" as your Initial Running Count. Then your key count of "20" will be equal to +1.8 TC early in the shoe and +1.3 late in the shoe. Due to the "floating advantage", this is a darn near perfect point at which to begin ramping up your bets, with either Red 7 or KissIII.

 

[UK-21]

From Mr S's book I was under the impression that RC-12 was equivalent to the thereabouts 0.5% HE, -6 would be NIL, and 0, the pivot, would be roughly a 0.5% advantage. Hence starting at 8. I appreciate that the correlations between the RC and edge do not increase or decrease consistently though.

 

[Renzey]

From Mr S's book I was under the impression that RC-12 was equivalent to the thereabouts 0.5% HE, -6 would be NIL, and 0, the pivot, would be roughly a 0.5% advantage. Hence starting at 8. I appreciate that the correlations between the RC and edge do not increase or decrease consistently though.

If you arbitrarily choose to start a six deck shoe at -12 (Initial Running Count, or "IRC" = -12), then yes, you will have an HE of 0.5% at that point with typical rules. But -- only off the top of the shoe! Further on in, -12 will have a bigger HE!.
An RC of -6 would produce an HE of -0.1% early in the shoe and -0.75% late in the shoe (due to the sliding correlation between the RC and TC with unbalanced counts). At all depths however, an RC of Zero would produce a player edge of roughly +0.6% with the index plays that would be used at this point (an ever-constant +2.0 TC).
Incidentally, An RC of -1 would be the most productive place to begin ramping up your bets. There, the player will have an advantage of between +0.5% and +0.35%, depending upon how deep you are in the shoe when it happens.

Moving your IRC to a positive number, such as "9" merely shifts all the values into positive digit counting territory, but keeps all their relative values the same. Then, "20" with an IRC of "9" will be the same as -1 with an IRC of -12.

 

[UK-21]

Thanks for that. Have always appreciated that the R7 ramp was a relatively broadbrush set of numbers, and that the RC/edge would alter at different points in a six deck shoe, but not by how much - frankly I didn't know how to tackle the sums with any confidence that what would fall out of the end would be sound. It's because of this, the issue of how much to put out when ramping at different RC's and the lack of indices that I moved over to the Hi-Lo count, which has been analysed to the nth degree.

But for simplicity and avoiding all of underlying numbers stuff, whilst getting more clay out as the advantage grows, I think using it will mean that even the mathematically challenged can still be winning (longer term) blackjack players.

I got a lot out of BBiBJ by Mr Snyder, although a lot of it doesn't really apply here in the UK - in recent years we've never had, to the best of my knowledge, single deck games, casinos don't do any serious comping or employ an army of surveillance staff, don't do back-offs at the table (never heard of one anyway), etc etc. For friends who have expressed an interest I tend to recommend your book as I think the way it's laid out makes it ideal for casual players - background, BS, a few easy to remember tweaks to enhance this and chip away at the HE, and then an easy to use counting system - all packaged up and ready to go but in three easy to learn stages.

I can't think why anyone who likes to play BJ, even occasionally as I do, doesn't bother to read up on the game? But that's another topic . . . .

 

[winnawinna]

Thanks for that. Have always appreciated that the R7 ramp was a relatively broadbrush set of numbers, and that the RC/edge would alter at different points in a six deck shoe, but not by how much - frankly I didn't know how to tackle the sums with any confidence that what would fall out of the end would be sound. It's because of this, the issue of how much to put out when ramping at different RC's and the lack of indices that I moved over to the Hi-Lo count, which has been analysed to the nth degree.

But for simplicity and avoiding all of underlying numbers stuff, whilst getting more clay out as the advantage grows, I think using it will mean that even the mathematically challenged can still be winning (longer term) blackjack players.

I got a lot out of BBiBJ by Mr Snyder, although a lot of it doesn't really apply here in the UK - in recent years we've never had, to the best of my knowledge, single deck games, casinos don't do any serious comping or employ an army of surveillance staff, don't do back-offs at the table (never heard of one anyway), etc etc. For friends who have expressed an interest I tend to recommend your book as I think the way it's laid out makes it ideal for casual players - background, BS, a few easy to remember tweaks to enhance this and chip away at the HE, and then an easy to use counting system - all packaged up and ready to go but in three easy to learn stages.

I can't think why anyone who likes to play BJ, even occasionally as I do, doesn't bother to read up on the game? But that's another topic . . . .

To further expand on the R7 true counts...a RC of 0 (-12 starting point) will always have a TC of +2 no matter how deep in the shoe. But the TC will change as you get deeper into the shoe.