Renzey's A/10 Front Count

Hi all,

I'm a newbie and am currently devouring everything I can read on the game. This forum has been a great help.

I'm currently reading Fred Renzey's Blackjack Bluebook II, and I have a question regarding his A/10 Front Count.

The count relies on you estimating when two decks have been dealt, and back-counting the number of aces and tens up to that point. If the number of aces and tens up to that point is 36 or less you sit down and play the rest of the shoe.

BUT: what if there are a number of players at your table so that lots of cards are dealt each round. You've been counting diligently and the previous round there were slightly less than two decks dealt, but after the next round there are more than two decks dealt. If the number of aces is now 38, do you sit down and play?

My point is that when the number of cards dealt was exactly 104 (somewhere in the middle of the last round) it MAY have been the case that the number of aces and tens was 36 or less, but by the end of the round the count has exceeded this number. So the shoe may actually be favourable even though it appears not to be.

Am I misunderstanding something here? Renzey emphasises that you need to be consistently within 3 or 4 cards of 104 for the count to work. Surely it's likely that any particular deal will take you beyond this? What do I do in this case?

I hope the question is clear.

Thanks for your help in advance.

like hi/low. It's easy and powerful. It gets the job done.

You can't stand back and always backcount every new pack until everything is perfect. They will bust you. Don't get hung up on just one book. Learn to count. It's not so hard.

first of all its a bunch of effort and it only gets you half way there. It works better on paper than in actual game play and for the effort it takes I have something even better for you thats short of a full blast count but to answer your question here goes:

1. you are never going to get the 2 deck cutoff just right so you may want to try counting the a/10's on a per hand basis and instead of counting all the way to 44 for 104 or whatever the numbers are try this instead...

2. know that on average each player is going to get 2.6 cards per hand and know the number of players at the table and calulate what the normal number of a/10's that represents. Then count like this... end of first hand and there's 5 a/10s - say to yourself "one-five" Then say to yourself "two-five", "two-six", Two-seven" until you get to whatever it is. Keep the number of hands and the number of a/10s so that you get a sense of the ratio between the two. By about the 6th hand PLUS the first pass of the seventh hand you should be at two decks if there are 6 players including the dealer (I am doing this from memory so recheck my math)

3. You normally get to 44 I think so you are looking for 36 or thereabouts. You have to build in a fudge factor for this. You should get yourself a multiple player BJ sim that provides a running count using any hi/lo unbalanced count like Knock Out (KO) so you can see how your own numbers compare to a "real" count. This will help you refine your counting. Also keep one hand below the table and count the rounds on your fingers if you have to so you can still talk and look around and sip a coke or whatever.

4. Better than the front count go online and learn the OPP count and get good at just tracking the low cards in relation to the number of hands and players. It corelates better and works all the way through the shoe. Its plus/minus but only in the sense that you count the low cards and sutract the number of hands played (including debiting for splits on the fly).

Check out: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Easy_OPP_Card_Counting_System.htm

This is 80% as good as counting, 25% harder than the front count (maybe less) and probably 3 times more powerful than the front count.

The key is to practice the living daylights out of whatever you do and in real play if you "lose it" than either walk to the bathroom or start fresh on the next shoe.

Thanks for your reply. I am in fact learning KO, which ironically I think is not much more difficult than the A/10 count, and performs almost as well as hi-lo in the kind of conditions I have to play in. I'm pretty sure I could learn hi-lo, but I'm not sure the extra 'bother' of having to convert to a true count is worth the small gain in EV.

I was just surprised to read about a system so simple and wanted to clarify this particular point, since it seems to me that if you continually get the count wrong this 'simple' system may lose you more money than you'll win.

I live in the UK and the rules over here are pretty poor. All games are played with 6 decks, S17, Double on 9, 10 or 11 only (no soft doubling), DAS, ENHC (dealer takes all with natural) and no insurance is offered. I think the house edge is a little over 0.5%. With this large an edge against me I think I really need to backcount at least some of the time, but this is often difficult in UK casinos since they're so small. Even in the larger London casinos there are often only two blackjack tables (at least in my price range) so it's not always possible to jump into a game.

Renzey actually doesn't suggest backcounting all the time, he suggests backcounting the first shoe, and if the count is too high after two decks have gone, to simply sit down at a shuffled shoe and play 'off the top'. He then has an exit strategy if the shoe doesn't look to be profitable, and alternates this strategy from table to table.

For every 20 tables you play using this method, he says that you'll play 10 of them from start to finish, play 5 of them for two decks and then leave, jump into 1 of them and pass on 4 altogether after backcounting the first two decks. So in fact you're only jumping into a back-counted game 5% of the time. He reckons that this way you can still get a 0.25% edge, and presumably this also affords some camouflage since you're not backcounting all the time.

Thinking about it though, I suppose I could just use a similar method using the KO count, in which case I guess I wouldn't need to be so precise with my estimate of two decks.

Renzey's system appeals to me because of its simplicity, but I find it hard to believe that this method will provide the edge that he quotes, particularly if you often get the count wrong due to the situation I mentioned in my initial post, which is why I'm asking the question.

But I may be misunderstanding what he's saying here, and I'd just like to make sure.

Thanks

gb, thanks for your reply. What you say makes sense, but if I have to go to all that trouble I may as well just learn to count properly :). But you've answered my question, thank you.

I've read about the OPP count before, and I actually think that this is even easier than the Front Count. But I believe that the OPP count's SCORE is around 50% of hi-lo or KO with indices. Since I think I can manage to learn one of these systems, I may as well do so.

Just thinking aloud again, given that there is so much error involved in the A/10 count process, what exactly do you think the author is expecting new players to do in this situation? I wonder if he has a website, I couldn't find a reference to one in the book.

Nomdeplume,

I developed the Ace-Ten count in the early 1990s. I still use it very successfully today. I didn�t like the fact that the insurance decision (made once every 13 hands) was only approximate for most counts. In my system, aces, tens and the exact number of cards exposed are keep in 3 separate counts. (I have developed a method to keep these 3 counts so that this is easier for me than Hi-Lo). Strategy decisions are based on the number of excess tens per deck remaining. I used to teach my count in the early 1990�s. I do not teach the count anymore and the book that I wrote for the course does not contain enough information to be useful without the course.

Perhaps Renzey is a past student of mine and is selling a knockoff. In any case, based on your post, I do not believe Renzey is providing you with enough information to make his ace-ten count worthwhile. My advice to you would be to learn a simple count like Hi-Lo.

Dr 21

Hi Dr 21, that's really interesting. Yes, although I like the sound of this system, it occured to me immediately that it seemed rather 'hit and miss' the way it is described in Renzey's book. I had no idea he wasn't the originator.

In fact he describes the system in some detail, including strategy changes, exit strategies and simple camouflage betting. But the fact that an accurate count of the number of cards dealt is not kept seems an obvious flaw to me.

As I said earlier I'm quite new to this and I'm sure that keeping track of three counts is too much for me at the moment. I think SB is probably right and I should stick to KO preferred. Thanks

If you are using the A/10 Front Count at a crowded table and it appears that two decks will have been dealt somewhere during the next round, why not just denote in your mind that, "8 more cards on the felt and I have my front count done". Then just take the number you have at that point and use it.

Renzey also has an unbalanced count in his book that you can learn in three stages, the KISS I, II and III. KISS I is the shortest plus minus count around and can be upgraded to stages II and III by adding an extra high and low card tag to your system each time. He touts KISS III as being slightly better, yet easier than KO.

You maintain three seperate registers:
T (or Tens): for six decks, decremented from 96 to zero as tens are seen.
T + NT (tens plus nontens or total cards): for six decks, decremented from 312 to zero as the cards are seen.
A (Aces): for six decks, decremented from 24 to zero as the Aces are seen.

Therefore you have IC of 1.00 for perfect insurance betting, grab just over half the gain from theoretical perfect play of the non-insurance decsions, and miss about a third of the favorable betting situations. And you do this by calculating ten density ratios as cards are exposed and the registers fall, and "leaning" your bets with ace density.

Have you ever read either edition of Beat the Dealer? How about the Casino Gamberr's Guide? [Wilson described keeping the Ten Count by starting with a (NT+T)/T ratio of 3.25]

Do youself a favor: cruise on down to your Barnes and Noble and nurse a latte while speed-reading BTD. Then resolve to refrain from claiming that you are invented the Ten Count. You may have, just not first. Not by several decades.

Nanuck wrote:

You maintain three seperate registers:
T (or Tens): for six decks, decremented from 96 to zero as tens are seen.
T + NT (tens plus nontens or total cards): for six decks, decremented from 312 to zero as the cards are seen.
A (Aces): for six decks, decremented from 24 to zero as the Aces are seen.

Actually, I said that I have developed a method to keep these 3 separate counts so that it is easier for me than Hi-Lo. What you have described is certainly not easier than Hi-Lo. I am not here to teach my system and judging by your attitude, you are not here to learn but rather to criticize. In any case, I count the cards from 1 to 52 and �reset� after each deck. Likewise, tens are counted from 1 to 16 and �reset�. Aces are indeed counted from 1 to 24 (for six decks) but the ace count is reduced by 4 for each deck seen. BTW, I play mostly double deck.

Therefore you have IC of 1.00 for perfect insurance betting, grab just over half the gain from theoretical perfect play of the non-insurance decsions, and miss about a third of the favorable betting situations. And you do this by calculating ten density ratios as cards are exposed and the registers fall, and "leaning" your bets with ace density.

My count is a little better than you think. If you had made as much money playing blackjack as me, you wouldn�t have the attitude that you have.

Have you ever read either edition of Beat the Dealer? How about the Casino Gamberr's Guide? [Wilson described keeping the Ten Count by starting with a (NT+T)/T ratio of 3.25]
Do youself a favor: cruise on down to your Barnes and Noble and nurse a latte while speed-reading BTD. Then resolve to refrain from claiming that you are invented the Ten Count. You may have, just not first. Not by several decades.

Actually, I did not claim to invent the Ten count. My post clearly states that I developed the Ace-Ten count. Yes, I have read Beat the Dealer. Based on your attitude and the fact that you �nurse lattes,� I suspect that I read the book while you were in diapers. Have a nice day.

Dr 21

I'm not interested in participating in your pissing contest. I'm unconvinced that you understand how ratio counts work(ed).

I suspect that I read the book while you were in diapers.

That would not have been possible. Most people born before me are dead or in nursing homes.

Have a nice day.

Gee, I don't think you mean it.

Ah, the Internet: the Golden Age of Misrepresentation.

I don't think you really know Dr 21 who has posted here over a decade with useful info. There are 3 bj Saints in here:

1) Leigh
2) DD'
3) Dr 21.

I hope you change your mind about Dr 21 after you find out more about him.

The Ten Count is very powerful in the stub of the deck and is exactly the reason why casinos stopped dealing to the end. But it is weak in assessing advantage early and is obsolete for than reason, perfect insurance not withstanding. It sort of surprised me that someone invested in the effort to refine the Ten Count a quarter-century after the fact.

This is why I use HO2. I not only get 93% of the possible advantage from perfect insurance, I get about 40% more gain from departures and a slight bit more gain from bet variation than is available from High-Low. Also, surveillance, if they are taught a count system, are taught High-Low. In single deck action, recognition of middle card densities can override index departures and really throw off surveillance analysis.

And I apologize for any (apparent) surliness. It is absolutely opposite to my intention to offend people, as that carries no upside. Life is short and I have less of it left than most.