When counting with Hi-Lo, isn't it more efficient for betting purposes to count 3 through 7 as +1 than 2 through 6?
My computer simulations suggest yes. Only mental weakness would suggest otherwise, no??
hi-lo is staight forward in it's application
2-6.....+1
7-9.......0
X-A.....-1
by changing this you would no longer be using hi-lo.
well, yes. and no.
put aside the labels.
is it more efficient for betting purposes to count 3-7 as +1, rather 2 through 6.
my calculations show yes, and I see no added difficulty.
counts 3 - 7 rather than 2 - 6. Sims show that it is ever so slightly better over-all. If you haven't already started with either, the learning process should be the same.
"Is it more efficient for betting purposes to count 3-7 as +1, rather 2 through 6."
Simple answer: no. You've gotten some confusing answers, above. For betting purposes, the EOR of the 2 is about 0.38, while that of the 7 is 0.28. (See Appendix D of BJA3, Table D17, p. 522.)
Uston created his count (3-7 = +1) for two reasons: He started a school in NY in the 1980s, and he wanted a count with his name on it, to rival Hi-Lo. Also, for similar purposes, he wanted counts with his name on them to put in his book, and he was urged, by Stanley Roberts, to get them created. Note that, ironically, the Uston APC was created for this purpose, but Uston himself didn't use the count that bore his name; instead, he used the Revere APC.
In any event, the 2 is more imnportant for betting purposes than the 7, so if you're going to count one as +1 and the other as 0, the 2 wins. Period.
Don
Uston created his count (3-7 = +1) for two reasons: He started a school in NY in the 1980s, and he wanted a count with his name on it, to rival Hi-Lo. Also, for similar purposes, he wanted counts with his name on them to put in his book, and he was urged, by Stanley Roberts, to get them created. Note that, ironically, the Uston APC was created for this purpose, but Uston himself didn't use the count that bore his name; instead, he used the Revere APC.
Wow, that's news to me. Care to elaborate as to why Uston didn't use his namesake count?
Thanks.
Regards,
drumz1
Since betting correlation for counting the twos rather than the sevens is clearly higher, it is pretty obvious that hi-lo performs better in shoe games. Sims lie sometimes.
However,the higher playing efficiency of Uston Plus-Minus makes this system interesting for single or double deck games.
Francis Salmon
counting the 2's gets bc of .970 vs .951 counting 7's.
interesting you point the extra p.e. gain counting 7's. haven't bothered to play with dd sims but I wonder how much it would amount to? it doesn't seem like much to me? also would that alter the indexes? whatever I guess you can't argue more gain for practically no more effort?
"Wow, that's news to me. Care to elaborate as to why Uston didn't use his namesake count?"
Sure. He had already been playing RAPC for a long time, and his count performed no better, so, there was simply no reason to switch. His count was created for marketing purposes, "foisted" upon him by Stanley Roberts. I think they sold something like 97 of them for $1,000 per, and Roberts kept most of the profits!
Don
Pe for hi-lo is 51 versus 55 for Uston Plus-minus. I guess there have to be special indices but I have no idea what they are.We will also see an index for 14 v 10 which is a weak point of hi-lo.That's probably where most of the pe gain for Plus-minus comes from.
There are no pitch games in my region, so I haven't really studied the subject. May be somebody else on the board is actually using the count and can tell you more about it.
Francis Salmon
Can't remember what I read about DD on this issue.
