In search of the perfect C system

My brother wants to learn to count. He wants me to decide which system is best suited for him. Right now he is a near perfect BS player. I�m convinced he doesn�t have the patience and perseverance to learn and properly use a level 2 count. However, he wants the option to add in a side C of aces later.

I�m personally using AOII. Given such, it goes against my grain to count aces in the main and on the side. I want to offer my brother a system that is powerful, easy to learn and use and if needed he can later add in a side C of aces.

How about I teach him the following balanced system:

2, 8 & A = 0 each
3,4,5,6,7 = +1 each
9,10,J,Q,K = -1 each

Does this system have a name? How accurate and perfect would it rate with or without a side of aces? Can I get the play and betting indexes for it?

Comments and suggestions please.

Stealth Bomber

I believe the system you describe is Hi-Opt I, and is slightly weaker than Hi-Lo because it does not include the ace. Hi-Lo is as follows:

2,3,4,5,6 = +1
7,8,9 = 0
10,J,Q,K,A = -1

Your brother would probably be better off learning Hi-Lo, because it is the standard by which other systems are measured, and it is more widely used than any other system.

Good Luck,
Slowhand

I believe the system you describe is Hi-Opt I, and is slightly weaker than Hi-Lo because it does not include the ace.

Here are a couple of ideas to think about since you are asking about the perfect C system.

For a 2D Face-up Game (it�s my game of choice):
A friend asked me to develop a count system that had the following objective: (1) a high BC (close to 1.0), (2) IC of 1.0, and (3) a more accurate way to determine TC. The following idea works best in a 2D face-up game (see below for ideas in SD). I�ve relied mostly on Richard Reid�s ideas to build this system.

I�ll reveal the broad framework without giving away some of the key shortcuts. Let�s use Hi-Lo for illustrative purposes. As a result, in 2 decks, there are 104 cards: 8 aces, 32 Ten-value cards (�40� high cards), 24 neutral cards, and 40 low cards. Here are the guidelines. Instead of employing the cancellation method, as the case with traditional the card counting, you employ the summation method. To get an IC of 1.0, you have to keep a side count of aces; that is to say you keep a separate count of aces and ten-value cards. Count each card dealt (including the burn card, if seen). To determine the RC, subtract the summation of low cards less the summation of high cards. To determine the TC, take RC and compare it to the number of unseen cards (there�s a couple of nice tricks to do this painlessly). To determine whether to buy insurance, you need to know the ratio of tens to non-tens remaining (again, there�s some nice tricks developed). Recall, during the insurance bet, the dealer gives the player additional time to decide, so it�s nice to have the extra time.

The count has 4 sets of digits and its goes like A-B-C-D or 7 - 4 - 2 - 15 (note the maximum is 40 - 32 - 8- 104) or a RC of +1, a TC of ~+1.2, and of the 89 cards remain, 28 cards are tens-value. Let�s say the count is now 12 - 5 - 2 - 23, the RC jumps to +5 and the TC goes to ~+6.4. Suppose we are at a different shoe, and the count is 16 - 6 - 8 - 40 for a RC of +2 and TC of about +3.3. Here, you would not make a bet despite a TC north of +3.

For a SD game:
I started this system during my days playing SD and needed a more accurate TC so I started to count all the cards that were dealt (I now had a 100% accuracy with respect to penetration). Then I started to keep a count of aces. Later I switched from Hi-Lo to KO and the win rate just shot up.

For TC conversion, I just use an index of the RC and number of cards remaining in the deck, i.e. RC of +2 with 16 cards dealt - that means there are about 34 cards remaining (the actual number is 36, I use 34 because it is easier to work with 50 rather than 52). That means a +2 RC with about 68% of the cards remaining (the actual number is 69.2%) yields a TC of about +3 (the actual TC is +2.89). Here�s my index (Cards Remaining as a %, Conversion Factor (to get to TC), Actual Cards Remaining assuming a 50 card-deck):

  

CR	CF 	ACR 

90%	1.11	45 (notice the relation between ACR and CR) 

80%	1.25	40 

70%	1.43	35 

60%	1.67	30 

50%	2.00	25 

40%	2.50	20 

30%	3.33	15 

20%	5.00	10 

Wow! Looks like trying to learn Greek to me. However, it looks like it has some real merrit. How does your system compare in playing efficiancy, bet correlation and ins. correlation. Has anyone ran any comparison sims on it yet. Are we trying to compare apples to oranges here? Why do you think this system is best? What
play and det indices? It may not be right for my brother. But I'm interested.

Since you're a fan of AOII, then you might like him to learn the Canfield Expert. The AOII is actually the Canfield Master count, which Bryce Carlson took as his own. Richard Albert Canfield's level one count is the Expert, and his level two count is the Master, or AOII. Canfield expert: BC.87 PE.63 IC.76

It's weakness as you can see is the IC at .76 which is low for not counting the Ace. The reason it's low is because it subtracts the 9. Same reason Silver Fox has a measly .69 IC.

I think the Expert count is solid. Hi Opt I is supposed to be superior, but I never found it to be very effective. Hi Opt I is probably better and easier to learn. But I think if he learns the Canfield Expert well, then it will work fine for him. If he wants a level one count which doesn't count the Ace, and is more powerful then both the Expert and Hi Opt I, there is the Lima count. It's an unbalanced count which you convert to a true count. The reason it's more powerful is because it counts 2-7 rather then 3-7, or 3-6 like the other two. Plus you convert it to a true count so it's as accurate as any balanced count. The down side is you have do a lot of negative counting, which I find a hassle. If you say he's not diceplined enough for a level two, he may not want to try the Lima either.

If you choose Canfield Expert, the playing indices are found in Richard Canfield's "Blackjack: your way to Riches" Hi Opt I indices are in Lance Humbles "World's greatest blackjack book". The Lima indices aren't published anywhere. It's John May's count, and he's got indices for it on another message board. I could find them for you if you wish.

MC

Here's recommendation: learn a simple level-1 count like KO (keep a side count of aces, and keep a count of the number of cards dealt for conversion from RC to TC) as opposed to level-2 or level-3 count.

First, learn to keep a RC using KO. Second, add a side count of aces rather than play games with your feet. For example, keep a count of: +4 [dash] 2, which is shorthand for RC of +4 and 2 Aces burnt. After being proficient with the RC and side count of aces, then add a third count for cards dealt. Like I wrote, using SD, once you know the number cards dealt, it's easy to get the TC: take 50 minus the number of cards dealt (recall I am using a 50 card deck* for ease of calculation), treat the difference as a percentage of the deck remaining, and use the reciprocal of the percentage to get the TC conversion factor. Say, 5 cards are dealt in the first round, that leaves 45 (50 minus 5) cards left which means 90% of the deck is remaining, and the reciprocal of 90% is 1.11 (recall 1/9 is 0.11 so 1/(90%) is 1.11, 1/8 is .125 so 1/(80%) is 1.25, etc.). As a result, the count will be X-Y-Z, where X is the RC, Y is the number of aces seen, and Z is the number of cards dealt. Just try a couple of times and you can see it's not that hard. You do not have to use KO in TC mode, although you will win more money in TC mode. Also, because you are using a 50-card deck as opposed to a 52-card deck, your TC will be biased.

All I am doing is taking an established system and adding more information to it. There's no alterations in the indices unless you want to adjust your bet for either an ace-poor or an ace-rich deck.

Cheers.

* For DD, you would use a 100-card deck such that if 17 cards are dealt, there is 83 cards remaining and the TC conversion factor is greater than 1.11x (90 cards remaining) but less than 1.25x (80 cards), although it's closer to 1.25x than 1.11x. Again, realized your TC will be biased.

The Lima is too hard because of negative counting. If the Canfield Expert had a BC in the low to mid 90's I would tell my bro to go for it. I can assume that if a side of aces was added for bet adjustment, it would put it up there, maybe in the high 90's. But maybe it's better to just use Hi-Low without the side of aces and just keep it simple. ................ Maybe use Hi-Low and switch the 2 for the 7. I'm assuming it is slightly better to count the 7 rather than the 2. He can always add in a side of aces with Hi-Low and be counting the aces twice. ?????????

You can find that system in his "Million dallor blackjack". It has a higher PE then Hi/lo, but a lower BC of .95

Thanks. I compared both on Casino Verite and the Uston Adv +/- appears to be slightly better.

I still wish I new if the Canfield Expert with a side of aces is better than Uston Adv. +/-.

Side counting Aces will be more difficult, but the Canfield Expert with the side count has better numbers, so it should be better.
Uston Adv. +/- is BC.95 PE.55 IC.76
Hi/Lo is BC.97 PE.51 IC.76
Canfield Expert with the side count should be:
BC.95/.96 PE.63 IC.76

I think the deciding factor should be how many decks he plans to play most of his games against. If it's single or double, then the Expert will be superior. IF he's gonna be playing against shoe's the higher PE won't help much, and the side count will be even more difficult. I use Hi/Lo, and am very happy with it. It's a great count and it's popular for a reason. Simple and powerful. I think it's probably better against shoe's then the Uston +/- with it's higherBC. The Uston Adv. +/- is also a good count, and I was considering learning it when I finally decided on Hi/lo

Hope this helps.

By the way, what were the final results of your sim? How much better did Uston Adv. +/- fair against Hi/Lo? And against how many decks were in the sim?

Thanks

MC

I didn't do a sim yet. I do have Casino Verite. I bought it and can't find where I put it. Lovely huh. I'll be moving soon. Maybe then I'll find it then.

I think I'm leaning toward the Canfield. I'll talk to my bro and see if he is willing to put forth the effort to learn it. Maybe he's just blowing smoke like most people do. :-)