Speed Count any good?

Hey everybody!
Just joined and love the forum. Can anyone tell me what they think of the "Speed Count" by Frank Scoblete? I've tried it and it seems to work. It's very easy to use and I know it doesn't give you the same edge as the HI-LO, but it takes a whole lot less mental energy to execute. I'm trying to find faults with it, and maybe tweak my play to adjust for it. Can somebody point what's wrong with it. Thanks.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
italianboy said:
Hey everybody!
Just joined and love the forum. Can anyone tell me what they think of the "Speed Count" by Frank Scoblete? I've tried it and it seems to work. It's very easy to use and I know it doesn't give you the same edge as the HI-LO, but it takes a whole lot less mental energy to execute. I'm trying to find faults with it, and maybe tweak my play to adjust for it. Can somebody point what's wrong with it. Thanks.
No. The advantage is a fraction of the claims in the book. KO-Rookie is twice as powerful and very easy.
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
italianboy said:
Hey everybody!
Just joined and love the forum. Can anyone tell me what they think of the "Speed Count" by Frank Scoblete? I've tried it and it seems to work. It's very easy to use and I know it doesn't give you the same edge as the HI-LO, but it takes a whole lot less mental energy to execute. I'm trying to find faults with it, and maybe tweak my play to adjust for it. Can somebody point what's wrong with it. Thanks.

Hello and Welcome.

Decide if you want a balanced or un-balanced count first.
 
Speed count

standard toaster said:
how does the speed count work?
If its that simple and dosent strain your brain chances are its extremley weak
Speed count works like this: There is a prescribed number that they came up with based on how many decks the game has. For example, a 6 deck game starts with the number 27. You simply subtract the number of hands played from 27 to begin the shoe, and then add +1 when you see small cards (2,3,4,5,6) come out. At the end of the round, you get a new starting number. If that number is 31( another number they came up with) or greater, you are supposed to have an advantage. It is unbalanced, true, but at that # 31, there will be more 10 value cards in the deck. There is just something missing from this method but I can't put my finger on it. Hope that helps.
 

standard toaster

Well-Known Member
italianboy said:
Speed count works like this: There is a prescribed number that they came up with based on how many decks the game has. For example, a 6 deck game starts with the number 27. You simply subtract the number of hands played from 27 to begin the shoe, and then add +1 when you see small cards (2,3,4,5,6) come out. At the end of the round, you get a new starting number. If that number is 31( another number they came up with) or greater, you are supposed to have an advantage. It is unbalanced, true, but at that # 31, there will be more 10 value cards in the deck. There is just something missing from this method but I can't put my finger on it. Hope that helps.
yeah dont bother with that count its not really worth your time or money. I started out with basic high-low:

+1 for every 2-6
0 for 7-9
-1 for 10-a

its simple but its an extremley effective way to count. Its a balanced count meaning at the end of the shoe when counted correctly it will add up to 0 so you should be able to predict the last couple cards. The downside to a balanced count is that you must convert your count to a true count. To do this you simply divide your running count by the # of decks remaining to get the true count. For every +1 in the true count you will gain about a .5% advantage.

Ditch the speed count and go for a system that is worth your time.
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
italianboy said:
Speed count works like this
Speed count sounds like K-O, except crappier.

For the effort you're going to put in to mastering it, you might as well learn K-O or Hi-Lo, and get better results.
 

SD Padres

Well-Known Member
callipygian said:
Speed count sounds like K-O, except crappier.

For the effort you're going to put in to mastering it, you might as well learn K-O or Hi-Lo, and get better results.
Are you suggesting KO is crappy?
 
K-O is OK (ha ha), but the high pivot has always troubled me. This means that it is really inaccurate in running count mode for important playing decisions such as 16-T, 12-4, D8-6 etc.. the only biggie it is ok for is insurance.

For a real beginner's count I would vote Red-7 every time. If you are wonging, you have an exact signal when to play and when not to play. The pivot at 2*#decks (ie +12 for 6 decks) is right on Hi-Lo TC=+2. If you intend to convert to true count later on, then by starting your count at IRC=-pivot(-12), then with a neutral UTC of -2, an insurance index of UTC=+1, 16-T, 12-4 and 8-6 at UTC=-2, your are well on your way.

Cheers,
Brett.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
Brett_Harris said:
K-O is OK (ha ha), but the high pivot has always troubled me. This means that it is really inaccurate in running count mode for important playing decisions such as 16-T, 12-4, D8-6 etc.. the only biggie it is ok for is insurance.
High Pivot is not really a problem. In fact, KO-Full is equal if not slightly superior to HiLo.
 
But against Red-7?

Its been ages since I did any really close comparision, that would not surprise me. I guess I have a soft spot for Red-7.

Brett.
 

Brock Windsor

Well-Known Member
There is a comparison of the three (KO Red7 and HiLo) on Blackjackforumonline. Determining the best varies with # of decks, penetration, and bet spread but they are quite similar for the most part. For my two cents I like KO and think it is the easiest of the bunch.
-BW
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
SD Padres said:
Are you suggesting KO is crappy?
Oops, no. I meant KO is just a little more effort with a lot more results. Apologies to the KO fans. :eek:

Edit:

QFIT said:
KO-Full is equal if not slightly superior to HiLo.
What's the difference between KO-Preferred and KO-Full? I can't find it with a simple Google search.

And incidentally, in my search, I came across some thread on this board between you and FLASH1296 in which you said KO-Full was as powerful as Hi-Lo, and that that surprised you. I'm not entirely sure where the surprise came from. 7 is as bad of a card as 2; presumably, if there is a count where 3-7 is "Low" and A-T is "High", that would perform as well as Hi-Lo. I had always assumed Hi-Lo just used 2-6 because basic strategy treats dealer 2-6 similarly. Or is your surprise that unbalanced counts work at all?
 
Last edited:

QFIT

Well-Known Member
callipygian said:
And incidentally, in my search, I came across some thread on this board between you and FLASH1296 in which you said KO-Full was as powerful as Hi-Lo, and that that surprised you.
We were all quite surprised that a non-true counted strategy could be just as powerful as a true-counted strategy.
 

SD Padres

Well-Known Member
"What's the difference between KO-Preferred and KO-Full? I can't find it with a simple Google search."

It's in the back of K-O book. Just way more indices. Performance wise it is only slightly more powerful than Preferred but I think I may implement for pitch games.
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
QFIT said:
We were all quite surprised that a non-true counted strategy could be just as powerful as a true-counted strategy.
Interesting. Are there any articles on the history of counting systems? I think it would be a pretty interesting read to see what people thought of things we relative n00bs take for granted nowadays.

Even the whole concept of computer simulation fascinates me. Presumably, when Hyland and his team were hitting casinos in the 1970's, they didn't have hardware as powerful as the cell phones we have today. Were counters of the era more mathematically inclined than counters today? Did casino games change over time as a result of counting, or because of casinos becoming more mathematically-oriented? Did casinos even realize that they were offering EV+ games in the 1950's?

Sorry for the digression.

SD Padres said:
Just way more indices.
Oh, okay. I thought there was fundamentally a different count.

I'm a little ashamed to say that I've never read the KO book. :eek: One of my friends used KO, so he explained it all to me, and the first time I saw the book I flipped through it, but figured I knew it all.
 

blackchipjim

Well-Known Member
speed count oppinion

I tried speed count years ago and really didn't like the results. Too weak of count accuracy was the problem I suspect. Ko full is the way to go for ease of use if that is a question for you. You would be better off starting with the Ko in general if you find deck estimation daunting and divisors nerve racking. blackchipjim
 
Many counting options

Thanks to all who rendered an opinion regarding speed count and other options. I will try the K-O rookie soon. Can anyone give a simplified explaination of it? Thanks.
 
Top