The Pro's Hand Count Without A Running Count System

Background
First off, I love the game of blackjack. I am a recreational blackjack player. I play 4 - 6 times a year and play at the nickel table. Up until last summer, I played KO and HiLo with unspectacular success. Seemed I would win one trip and lose the next.

Last summer I was intrigued by a system offered by The Pro called "The Count Without Counting Cards". The Pro has since renamed it "The Hand Count Without A Running Count". At first glance it seemed this couldn't possibly work. Counting pat hands and non-pat hands seemed to go against the experts here. It was certainly novel in design. I learned it, practiced it on a simulator, and then tried it in casino play.

The first trip, I won $350. Not bad for a nickel player.

The second trip, I lost $275. OK, I am used to the back and forth results in blackjack from my KO and HiLo experience.

The third trip, I won $200.

Now I know 3 trips do not make a sustainable pattern. But it did show promise and motivate me to test the system more. Following are my tests:

Table Dynamics
I simulated the Hand Count with Sage Blackjack Version 3.5. I simulated it playing the casino game I prefer the most which is Double Deck, S17, DA2, DAS, RSA. I set the penetration at 50% which is about average or maybe slightly worse than I usually see at the casino.
I set the table up with 4 players: First Base was playing HiLo. Next to him was playing KO. The Hand Count player was sitting in the middle. The 3rd base player was playing Red Seven.

Bet Spread
The HiLo, KO, and Red-7 players were spreading $5-$50 on counts from +1 to >+9. The Hand Count Player bet $5 on <+2, $15 units on +3, $25 units on +4 & +5, and $40 on >+5. There was no wonging. Every player played every round.

Trips and Sessions Simulated
Since you cannot computer simulate a hand count using Sage, I had to manually play the Hand Count. I have simulated 3 trips so far. Each trip consists of 100 sessions. Each session consists of 10 shoes. During a trip each player played over 4,000 hands. A total of 12,343 hands each were played by the 4 players (Splits counting as 1 hand) for the 3 trips. There were no deviations from Basic Strategy during play.

Results

Trip 1
HiLo +$1,053
KO +$1,995
Hand Count +$1,701
Red Seven +$3,213

Trip 2
HiLo +$1,170
KO +$ 43
Hand Count +$1,052
Red Seven -$ 50

Trip 3
HiLo +$ 507
KO -$ 450
Hand Count +$2,860
Red Seven +$ 80

Cumulative
HiLo +$2,731
KO +$1,588
Hand Count +$5,614
Red Seven +$3,244

Despite the lower bet spread, the Hand Count put more money on the table per session averaging around $600 total bet per session vs. around $400 for HiLo and KO and $450 for Red Seven.

In these 3 trips simulations, the most the Hand Count was ever down was $395.

During the 1st trip, then Hand Count turned positive for the duration of the trip on the 25th session. The highest point was on the 85th session at $2,256

During the 2nd trip, it didn't turn positive for the duration until the 65th session. The highest point was oddly on the 100th session.

The 3rd trip the Hand Count started off strong and never got into the negative. The highest point was on the 95th session at $2,907.

Before the mathematicians jump on my case: I realize that 12,143 hands played is not a statistically sound sample. Maybe it is an aberration.
But I think this system deserves some study because:
1) It seems to perform comparable to the level 1 counting systems
2) It is easier to play than any counting system I am familiar with.
3) It offers excellent cover because there are numerous times where the hand count is positive (>+2)when the running and true counts are negative.

While playing, I observed the counts on the other systems. Most of the time, the Hand Count mimicked the other counts. But even when the Hand Count was positive and called for a higher bet and the Running Count or True Count was negative...the Hand Count won more often than it lost.

I have also simmed this method playing heads up on double deck. The results have not been as encouraging. Simulating 7,025 hands playing heads up double deck yielded a whopping $10 win. Simulating 2,923 hands each spot, playing 2 hands using the Hand Count playing heads up in double deck yielded a loss of $190.

Six Deck
I am working on a simulation for 6 deck playing with the above 3 counting methods. This obviously takes longer. So far, here are the results

6 Deck w/75% pen - 1,395 hands played each (incomplete)
HiLo -$ 262
KO -$ 128
Hand Count +$ 352
Red Seven +$1,088

Can this system compete with other counting systems?
If it can, it sure offers some advantages like:

1) You can carry on a conversation without fear of losing the count since the count starts over after each hand. Perfect for a non-multitasker like me.

2) If you do lose the count...it is lost for 1 hand, not for the whole shoe.

3) It sure is easier to count pat hands and non-pat hands rather than individual cards.

4) You don't need as big of a spread as with KO in particular to get a comparable result.

It also appears to have limitations from my experience.
1) It seems to work best at a table of 3 - 5 players.
2) The swings will be greater with 6 deck
3) Best suited for the Double Deck game.

Are my sims an aberration? Do I need to report back when I have simmed a billion hands? Is there a blackjack simulator that can computer simulate a hand count on the market? I will gladly buy it and test it further.

Your thoughts please!

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

The Pro's Blackjack systems can be downloaded from
http://www.bjfox.com

Click on the link called free blackjack systems
then download the .exe file

The system I am talking about is the Hand Count Without The Running Count

Now, why would they bust my post?
It is certainly related to miscellaneous blackjack?
Shouldn't matter if it is a counting system (which it is imho) or not.

Is there something I am not privy to here?
I think most who have been on here at least a year are familiar with the Pros Systems.

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

I'm sure many will say this method doesn't belong here, but it was originally referred to as a counting method without counting. As long as you brought it up, someone would probably accuse the site of bias if it wasn't allowed to continue. So let's give it one more round and put the matter to rest.

When The Pro put the method on the web at no charge, it at least proved to me that he wasn't trying to use this site as a free sales tool for the "system". I took a look at it at that time, but I didn't go too far. On the surface it seemed as if I might as well make my decisions based on whether the player next to me had won or lost his last bet. To be sarcastic, I might as well make my next wager based on whether the waitress had put my last drink to my right or my left. So, my thought was that it's really a progressive method which depends, not on the composition of the remaining cards, but, rather, on the specific composition of each individual preceeding round - each current round starting anew. (Forgive me if I misunderstood.) If I interpreted it correctly, however, why isn't it a progression strategy with a title that misleadingly wants to connect itself with counting?

You're above results may be interesting, but (as I've said in an exchange with Mr. Thomason, below) almost anything can work, or not, in a short test. Many progressive methods, after all, can show short term positive results. (And, although I'm a confessed computer idiot, I can readily see why this strategy can't be fed into existing sim software.)

As one who isn't quite so prone to just dismiss something because it goes against conventional strategy, I'd be willing to follow this to a responsible conclusion. I've said elsewhere that if you do the same thing every time - any same thing - you can arrive at a Standard Deviation for the method. I'm having difficulty with this one, however, in that I don't see any consistency on which to base sameness. Relying on the composition of a previous round seems to me to be a hit-or-miss situation. What if you see a round of all Ten count cards on top of a TC+8? Or a round of small cards on top of a TC-8? Or, worse, a round of additional Ten count cards pops up in a negative situation?

But, as a vote of one, I'm personally willing to see it explained.

Good Fotune with the adventure.

When I first saw your subject line, I mis-read it, and though you were appealing to the post busters to take it down. I wasn't going to post that I disagreed with that.

I do not know what the "hand count is". But if it is counting ho many initial hands are 17 and higher, then it is a weak form of card counting. As such, it would not be a progression system.

I am not sufficiently motivated to look up more info on the definition of the hand count and provide an analysis. But I do think the thread should be left up.

The Hand Count Method for the 3 simulated trips had the following session results:

Trip 1
# of Winning Sessions 54
# of Losing Sessions 46
# of Sessions That Broke Even 0
Avg. $ Won on Winning Sessions $118
Avg. $ Lost on Losing Sessions $101
Most $ Won in One Session $305
Most $ Lost in One Session $302
Total Amount Won (Lost) $1,701

Trip 2
# of Winning Sessions 58
# of Losing Sessions 42
# of Sessions That Broke Even 0
Avg. $ Won on Winning Sessions $ 99
Avg. $ Lost on Losing Sessions $112
Most $ Won in One Session $277
Most $ Lost in One Session $285
Total Amount Won (Lost) $1,052

Trip 3
# of Winning Sessions 60
# of Losing Sessions 39
# of Sessions That Broke Even 1
Avg. $ Won on Winning Sessions $110
Avg. $ Lost on Losing Sessions $ 96
Most $ Won in One Session $385
Most $ Lost in One Session $222
Total Amount Won (Lost) $2,860

Remember a trip consisted of 100 sessions. A session consisted of 10 shoes. The results were tabulated at the end of each session and summarized for the trip as a whole. There was no particular reason for the number of shoes in a session except that I like to play about a 45 minute to 1 hour session and take a break. I was trying to simulate my casino play as close as possible. I figured that would be a good average number of shoes to expect in a 45 minute to 1 hour time frame. I calculated that these 3 trips would amount to approximately 250 hours of play.

If there is any other data that might help, please let me know.

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

2 Card Pat hands
2 Card Non-pat hands
Drawn out Busted Hands
Drawn out Stand Hands
as played by all the players and the dealer.

It does not take into account the individual cards that make up each hand.

According to the Pro, it also does not matter the other player's level of play. If a player stands on a soft 17 against a dealer 10, then it would not matter as far as the count is concerned. That kinda buffaloed me at first.

I don't consider it a weak counting system at all.
The Pro claims an average +2% EV.
So far, my data backs that up.
And I know my data is based upon a limited sample.

I would appreciate your evaluation. If you think it is still weak, tell me why please.

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

A suggestion:
The assumption is a Win, but don't make the reader have to figure it out. If a win - "total amount won", if a loss - "total amount lost". If you like the Won (lost) concept, put a plus or minus sign before the total. Basically, we're all lazy with something in which we only have a passing interest. Make it as easy as possible for the reader to follow.

Just my opinion.

Because on the surface it sounds like a progression system and some folks get real upset when progressions are discussed on this page. There's a progressions page (which I've never bothered to visit) that discusses those types of systems.

Maverick was trying to help you avoid the possible bust.

i don't know the system, but if it starts over after each round (disregarding previous information), this can only serve to make the system weaker than it might already be. this being the case, it can only be useful (if it is) in a single deck game (and only barely at that).

this system (from what i gather) sounds similar to one proposed by leon b. dubey, jr in his book no need to count. his system also evaluated wins & losses & how many cards were used to complete a hand. arnold snyder evaluated it some years ago and didn't think it had much value.

Will i this system "work" with 6 decks??

Doesn't miscellaneous cover all related BJ topics by definition?

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

You can down load the exe.file, but you can't have the system until you are a paying memeber?

In your 6 deck sim, did you use the same player advantage +2, +3, +5 ???

You do not have to be a paying member to download and read in full The Pro's blackjack methods. The only methods that are reserved for members is his ACDC Horse Handicapping system and his Ultimate Blackjack system.

You do have to click on the link "Free Systems" on the bjfox website. Then click on either the .exe or the .zip download.

This is not a ploy for membership. It is an honest request for an evaluation of my results. I am sure The Pro would appreciate an honest critique of his other systems as well. But I am most interested in this one particular system as it fits my style of play perfectly.

And I see now, you don't have to download anything as The Pro has posted the entire Hand Count Without the Running Count on this thread.

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

Everything is the same except the number of decks.

The Pro claims it will work fine with six deck games. I am less optimistic. My own opinion is this system is tailor made for double deck.

I have not simmed enough on six deck to make a fair judgement. I have not played the system with 6 deck at all.

I am sure there are those who think I have not simmed enough to make a fair judgement on double deck either. But the results so far sure look promising.

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

If you do run further sims on a 6 deck I would be very interested at your results.

I am a novice counter who is wondering about the effort it is taking to get to the skill level required to play the game over several hours.

Also I am concerned that this effort may be for nothing if the spread of csm's continues and I was interested to see that this system had be tested using the shuffle master. (by the way did you set up your sim using continuos shuffle conditions).

I would like to give it a shot under real conditions but would like some evidence that 6 deck csm games are suitable.

Thanks for your help.

No known counting system works with a CSM to my knowledge.

It should work fine with a non-continuous shuffle machine, however.

Best regards,
Crackerjack

I suggest you purchase a blackjack simulator and try it yourself. Set the game up as close to your usual casino's conditions as possible. Have other players play other methods. I am working on a 5 player table now with one flat bettor who plays not to bust. Not every player at a table plays perfect basic strategy you know. Seems that most don't as a matter of fact.

Doing this is excellent practice. It is how I learned. And it is cheaper to make mistakes on a simulator than at the casino.

One other advantage I forgot to mention. Since you are counting hands, not cards, there isn't a dealer out there who can deal faster than you can keep count once you have mastered it.

I don't think you will be disappointed. But then, my experience is limited as well.

I will keep this board updated on any new sim results.

Best Regards,
Crackerjack

The answer to your question is

Doesn't miscellaneous cover all related BJ topics by definition?

Is "No". This board is designed for all topics which do NOT belong on other boards.

For example, if you put up questions or information on a Midwest casino, you will get a polite note from the post-busters telling you to please put that on the Midwest.

Voodoo techniques belong on the Progression Board. Progression posts put here are usually busted.