The Bishop on Side-Counting

zengrifter

Banned
Here is a vintage article by ASnyder that emphasizes what I've been saying about the over-hyped level-2 Ace-neutral type counts, as well as the inefficiency of Ace-adjusting by estimation of Ace-density per 1/4D - once again, if you use AO2, HO2, UAPC or the like, you will NOT obtain the higher SCORE value that a PC-sim will indicate - so work SMART not hard! zg

-----------------

Can Side-Counting Make You a SUPER COUNTER?
by Arnold Snyder
BJF Vol. IV #3, September 1984
(Dead link: http://www.bjrnet.com/thop/sidecount.htm)

I've spent the past 4 years advising players to streamline their card counting strategies. Computer tests and mathematical analyses have shown time and again that the most important factors affecting the card counter's win rate are the game conditions - the number of decks in play, shuffle-point, hands per hour, etc. Given like conditions, the more complex systems rarely significantly outperform the simpler systems. This is especially true in multi-deck games. My angle on beating the tables has been to exploit those games which are the easiest to beat, rather than struggle to get an edge in a tough game.

Most card counters, because they are not full-time pros, do not have enough time to dedicate to the memorization and practice required for the more difficult systems. Yet, casual players who can recognize which games are more exploitable, can do quite well as blackjack players if they can accurately apply a simple count strategy.

One of the major simplifications a player can employ, with little effect on his win rate, is to quit attempting to side-count aces. Many card-counting systems provide ace adjustment advice, but maintaining two separate counts, and then utilizing this information with precision, is not an easy task for most players. In multi-deck games, a side-count of aces will rarely increase a card counter's win rate by more than 1/20 of 1%. Even in a deeply dealt single-deck game, a side-count of aces is not worth more than 1/5 of 1% to a counter's win rate.

continued - (Dead link: http://www.bjrnet.com/thop/sidecount.htm)
 

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
Re: The Bishop on Side-Counting *LINK*

> Here is a vintage article by ASnyder that emphasizes what I've been saying
> about the over-hyped level-2 Ace-neutral type counts, as well as the
> inefficiency of Ace-adjusting by estimation of Ace-density per 1/4D - once
> again, if you use AO2, HO2, UAPC or the like, you will NOT obtain the higher
> SCORE value that a PC-sim will indicate - so work SMART not hard! zg

Yes you can! See the link below. Start your ace SC at +4 * Decks. Subtract 1 point from the side count for each ace seen. Add primary and secondary counts together and calculate the unbalanced true count. Your pivot (neutral deck TC) will be +4.

If you are using a multi-level count, multiply the numbers above by 2 or 3.
 

ElementX

Member
As a user of the AOII, I've struggled with the neutral ace concept. The theory is that the ace has little value in making or breaking a hand, but at the same time it is advantageous for the player, so I'm somewhat confused. Mayor abd anybody else, what do you guys make of this. Are counts like AOII not effective because of this?

ElementX
 

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
Re: Ace Value *LINK*

The ace's value to the player comes almost entirely from the 3:2 bonus paid to the player but not the dealer on a blackjack. If BJ pays even money, you would simply use an ace-neutral count and ignore aces completely.
 

zengrifter

Banned
The bottomline -

IF you effectively adjust for Ace-density per 1/4D as Carlson and others advocate, what you lose in terms of potential single parameter betting efficiency will leave you with the same and no better gain than if you worked less hard with a level-2 Ace-reckoned count like RPC, ZEN, or EBJ, #indices being equal - thus a count like ZEN w/no Ace bet-adjustment will perform on par with AO2 w/Ace-adjustment-per-1/4D, yet be easier. (see tags comparison below)

(tags 2-A)
HO2 - 112211 0 0-2 0
AO2 - 112221 0-1-2 0
Zen - 112221 0 0-2-1

One possible solution that could ease your transition back to the 'work-smarter' sector is to immediately switch your 9 and Ace tag values BUT KEEP your current AO2 indices. zg
 

s_donelow

New Member
isn't the ace worth more at higher counts?

I would agree that at low counts knowing the density of aces isn't worth much, knowing that the odds of getting a blackjack on my table minimum bet are higher than normal because there are a couple more aces in the deck than there sould be doesn't excite me much.

I would imagine, though, that knowing the density of aces at high counts is extremely important for four reasons, more blackjacks and more opportunities to double down on soft hands, and as a negative modifier on doubling down on 11 vs aces and tens, and as a positive modifier on doubling down on 10 vs tens and aces.

Is there any way to calculate the value of knowing the density of aces at high true counts, say TC > 5, instead of the "average" value of this information because, as I said earlier, knowing the density of aces when the count is low isn't very helpful.

When I am going to be putting out large bets I want all the information I can get to advise me on what that bet should be and how to play the hand.

I have been using side counts for years and I just don't get why certain authors say they are "hard". Perhaps I just find making calculations in my head easier than most, I dont know.

Steve
 

Rob McGarvey

Well-Known Member
Re: isn't the ace worth more at higher counts?

You are a smart man. How would you play BJ if every card left was an A and a 10?? Everything in between that and a new shuffle has a proper bet size attached to it. What I think some of the guys are saying is that for new players they should not go after a count with a side count. I agree. They also think it is not worth the extra effort $$ wise since, A: some players can't handle it and will flop their EV #'s, and B: it simply is not worth it $$ wise. It is every single players responsibility to themselves to make their own decisions about what they are capable of and whether or not it is worth the extra $$.
 

zengrifter

Banned
Re: ace worth more IRRELEVANT

>>You are a smart man. How would you play BJ if every card left was an A and a 10?? Everything in between that and a new shuffle has a proper bet size attached to it. << -Robo
-------------------

A "smart man" should also recognize that most long-time knowledgable pros do NOT use a Ace-neutral count w/Ace-adjustment betting anymore for the reasons that I have posted ad-nauseum (in order to offset the antiquated advice being offered by some less-in-the-know posters) zg
 

zengrifter

Banned
Re: The Bishop on Side-Counting WHOA!

>Yes you can! See the link below. Start your ace SC at +4 * Decks. Subtract 1 >point from the side count for each ace seen. Add primary and secondary counts >together and calculate the unbalanced true count. Your pivot (neutral deck TC) >will be +4. <<
-------------------

Whoa! The subject is the antiquated 1/4D Ace-density-estimate that Robster is pushing - do you agree or disagree with Snyder and Uston as to the value of THAT method?

As a side note, please take a moment to reiterate slowly the above method - are you saying that the method you described will afford similar gain as the 3-card Ace secondary count that Snyder describes?

Another question of relevancy - which would perform better - HO2 w/ 20 indices and an Ace-density per 1/4D bet adjustment -or- HiLo w/75 indices and NO sidecount. Which would likely be easier to employ? zg
 

steve

Active Member
Re: ace worth more IRRELEVANT

yet again, you do not answer my questions with facts but just give your opinions. My question was, what is the ace worth at higher counts, with the presumption that since you are going to be placing a relatively large bet and the density of the aces left can make a difference both on the amount of this bet and on the decision to double down or not on several double down plays, that the value of the ace in this case may be large enough to make it worthwhile.

If your answer had been: "even in that case the Ace is still only worth .1% (or whatever the number was that you used in your argument before)" then that would have been an answer to my question. But to say just because other people don't use it means you shouldn't do it, that isn't an answer. And then to say because someone would pose this question means that they are not "in the know", well I guess I don't understand what that means then.

I guess I'm just not "in the know" enough.

Steve
 
Top