Specific Interests of 2-deck[+ indexes correlating]

[IcyM]

In all fairness the rules you listed were fairly good for a double-decker, and with a score of 65 on the SPI, it makes a good play. However the SPI is a rough estimate, and I am unsure how well a 1-4 spread will do for you, I would SIM it against the 6 deck option to see which comes out on top.

Regarding the indices, I wouldn't personally rely on Thorps book, its a great piece of blackjack history but not really relevant to the game today. You would do much better with a more up-to-date set of indexes for HiLO, or Zen if you decide to upgrade. If you are interested in playing as perfectly as possible for the two deck game, then the indices will be slightly different to the 4D and 6D versions.

Wongs book will be your best bet for accurate TC based indices.

If you choose to upgrade to Zen, do not use the true edge method in BiB, use the TC adjustment indices, which can be obtained if you look in the right places.

Pierce

Just curious - do you use Zen mostly? And also, do you use Zen for maybe 2-deck but a Hi-Lo for 6-deck, or do you in general just stay consistent with 1 type of count?

What is the least advanced but most powerful count to play vs the rules I listed earlier[2-deck]? I say least advanced, not because I'm lazy, simply because I know the minor edges gained from a more powerful+advanced count can be nullified instantly if you make an error or 2, so I'd like to stay error-free but something good. I know focusing primarily on 1 set game is silly, but I just had another losing session earlier and I haven't sensed 1 ounce of heat for playing frequently at where I have been. I'd like to go in there with a consistent, concise count, but Hi-Lo doesn't seem 2-deck optimal from earlier statements.

Past 2 nights have a +12 @ ~70% penetration, with like 3 hands to go, and get hit badly :\ dealer pulls the blackjacks, and somehow I get stiff 16's .. not fun losing max spread bets @ 4% advantages. Wish the game had surrender with the abnormal amount of 16's I pull on plausible counts deep in the deck.

 

[IcyM]

IcyM,

When you are granted private messaging privileges, after 10 posts, message me.

Sure.

 

[bigplayer]

Because when I read, it seemed there was a difference in a TC and Thorp's index values; TC is based on deck's remaining[RC/deck's remaining], usually an integer of 1-8, but obviously not uncommon to have to use .25 or .5 value values also to account for 1/4 or 1/2 decks. Whereas it sounded that Thorp's index value's are based on unseen card's remaining[RC/unseen cards] - completely different from unseen deck/s remaining because you're dividing the RC by a larger number and multiplying by 100(to get it's percent value, which Thorp describes the final number as being the high low index). When everyone is sitting here saying you can't do math for ****, I'm just using those references; RC +9/52 = .17307(I said 18 because 9/50 seemed mentally easier to = 18). Multiply this by 100, as Thorp has described in his book(to change to percent multiply by 100), to get the final result of high low index number.

Reference page 96 of Beat the Dealer if you feel there is little validity to what I describe. My only issue is miss-information is the worst of results I could ask for, so please keep that in mind.

Sorry, I don't own a copy of Beat the Dealer...it's a nice historical artifact but has little value to players otherwise. If you're playing High-Low get Wong's Book.

 

[IcyM]

Sorry, I don't own a copy of Beat the Dealer...it's a nice historical artifact but has little value to players otherwise. If you're playing High-Low get Wong's Book.

I picked up Blackjack Secrets (Wong) earlier today. Is Professional Blackjack (Wong) more specific, similar, or ..? Thanks for any advice.

 

[PierceNation]

Just curious - do you use Zen mostly? And also, do you use Zen for maybe 2-deck but a Hi-Lo for 6-deck, or do you in general just stay consistent with 1 type of count?

What is the least advanced but most powerful count to play vs the rules I listed earlier[2-deck]? I say least advanced, not because I'm lazy, simply because I know the minor edges gained from a more powerful+advanced count can be nullified instantly if you make an error or 2, so I'd like to stay error-free but something good. I know focusing primarily on 1 set game is silly, but I just had another losing session earlier and I haven't sensed 1 ounce of heat for playing frequently at where I have been. I'd like to go in there with a consistent, concise count, but Hi-Lo doesn't seem 2-deck optimal from earlier statements.

Past 2 nights have a +12 @ ~70% penetration, with like 3 hands to go, and get hit badly :\ dealer pulls the blackjacks, and somehow I get stiff 16's .. not fun losing max spread bets @ 4% advantages. Wish the game had surrender with the abnormal amount of 16's I pull on plausible counts deep in the deck.

I use Zen. Pitch games are non existent where I live, just 4 and 6 deckers.

If there were pitch games I would use Zen for both, learning two counts efficiently would be ridiculously hard and ultimately pointless IMO.

Zen is the optimal choice. This is because it is a level 2 count, which does not require a side count of aces. HiOptII is very powerful but requires a side count of aces.

A lot of players worry about making mistakes with a level 2 counts, but let me say this. Does the concert pianist worry about making mistakes when playing Liszts Hungarian rhapsodies? No. Why? Because he has practised long and hard and does not have to worry about making mistakes anymore.

 

[jack.jackson]

I just wanted to make a point,thats its important to note, not to be confused with dividing to the nearest 1/2 deck, and not by how many 1/2 decks are left, which may be the case of the OP.

For example a RC of +10 w/2 and a 1/2 decks left=TC +4

But a RC of +10 with 5 1/2 decks remaining= a TC of +2.
(You can and need however, to double the value of your index to get the same result/accuracy as the 1st example).