Anyone expert enough to shed some light on accurately true counting and unbalanced system? I have found very little to nothing written on this topic. The best and most effecient way to explain a principle or concept is by example. Any takers here?
I use the unbalanced KISS Count from Blackjack Bluebook II and the "true fudging" method that is outlined as an upgrade to that system near the back of the book. What the author has done is calculate in advance what the actual true count is at each running count for different depths in the shoe. Then after noting how far off each true count is from its true count at mid shoe, he advises adjusting your index number (for betting and playing) up or down that amount after looking at the discard tray.
It's much easier than it sounds and I think, quite accurate. Take the insurance play as an example. Its index number is 25. That's an accurate strike point if you are at mid shoe (about +3 or +3.5 true count the chart says), but it is somewhat off for early or late in the shoe. The real true count won't be high enough for insurance if you are early in the shoe unless your running count is 26. If you are late in the shoe, 24 produces the qualifying true count. So you know in advance without any true count conversion that you will take insurance at 25 midway, but at 26 early and at 24 late. No need to think about anything else. And, a running count of 25 is also the index number for doubling on 8 vs. 5, doubling on 9 vs. 7, standing on 12 vs. 2 and doubling on A/8 vs. 4. So you knock off five index plays with one true fudging move. Lower index plays like 11 vs. A or 12 vs. 3 need no adjustment according to the author and higher index plays like 15 vs. 10 and 16 vs. 9 require a two point fudge in each direction. You do the same with choosing your bet sizes.
When I think about it, it seems archaic and redundant to keep calculating the true count on the fly when you can know the adjustment for any running count in advance, and know that you will be accurate by just fudging your required index number up or down a notch or two based on discard level.
As the author says, doing a true count conversion on the fly with a balanced count involves deck estimation and calculation roundoffs. Practically speaking can true fudging be any less accurate?
Keeping the running count is pretty redundant itself.
If memorizing what the actual true count is at each running count, for different depths in the shoe, and then noting how far off each true count is from its true count at mid shoe, and then adjusting your index number up or down that amount after looking at the discard tray .. is easier than dividing 6 by 3 to get 2 .. then by all means stick with it! :)
I personally think that if you are going to get good enough to be successful in this endeavour you will need to learn any system until it all becomes second nature anyway, and I think a balanced count has other applications to offer later in life.
Don't misunderstand. You don't memorize what the true counts are for given running counts at various shoe depths at all. You are never even aware of it. All that is just the predetermined basis which tells you how to fudge.
All you know is that at running counts of 23 and below, you use the published index number as is, at 24 and above you fudge one point up or down depending on shoe depth, and at running counts of 27 and above you fudge up or down two points. That has you playing and betting essentially by the true count. You keep only the running count in your head rather than switching back and forth from running to true.
The original purpose of point counts was to indicate imbalace in rank distribution to optimize betting. This was the reason Thorp included the Ultimate Count in his 1962 publication. At the end of that decade, a writer calling himself Jaques Noir published Casino Holiday with his unbalanced point count, which was the Ten Count as point count (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,-4,1), yielding perfect insurance betting without ratio counting.
Half a decade later, this approach was elaborateded upon, including by inclusion of decision tables, in Winning at 21 by John Archer. Archer wrote that there was a shortcoming to what he described as "the Archer Method", a shortcoming he called "the varying significance of the point count". The varying significance was a product of the unbalance nature of the count, remedied by recognizing penetration.
So, the simplification of unbalaced counting is accomplished at a cost of information, and this information is recaptured by appending exactly the task with which the unbalanced count dispensed in the first place.
What's the point? And, as Sun Runner wrote, the unbalanced approach obviates its use in segment counting. Doesn't that make these counts deadends suitable for use only by unmotivated neophytes?
Divide the Running Count by the Departure Index. The coefficient is the number of decks required to be undealt to justify the departure. I computed my indices by rounding, therefore RC�DI is the point of indifference, a coin flip. (FWIW, this was the method Wong used in the original publication of Professional Blackjack and his change in computation method accounts for the one integer change in his departure indices in later editions.)
You can, as Revere advised, "Bet your moneyaccording to the running count" and the True Count need never be rigorously calculated.
> Doesn't that make these counts deadends suitable for use only by unmotivated neophytes?
That's a little harsh -I know of at least one guy who consistently knocks the house down using KO. He is a big money shoe player, far from being a neophyte.
Even so, if you aspire someday to something other than straight counting, I believe a balanced count is superior to learn.
> the simplification of unbalaced counting is accomplished at a cost of information, and this information is recaptured by
> appending exactly the task with which the unbalanced count dispensed in the first place.
Well said; that's where I always get back to.
I was just saying if you get really good at any system, redundancy is not an issue and I like Hilo because I could never get comfortable keeping up with the deck composition with KO. I'm sure it's possible and it may be easy but I have not figured it out.
Of course Cacarulo has shown that in a shoe game true counted KO will most likely beat Hilo given the circumstances.
