Unbalanced tables(counts) tip over, (give money away).

I kind of feel stupid asking this, and I think I will probably get a stupid andswer to a stupid question, as I don't know what I am talking about, but am just blurting out some blind nonsense theory about how such a simple fact has seemed to elude us up until now. While I fear this be true, I hope not because I think this is a topic of general interest to most blackjack players, especially those who have used, or are using an unbalanced counting system as it will greatly improve accuracy and thus winning expectation, along with the money and other tangible rewards of playing with a more powerful, and efficient system. Also for those who have considered using an unbalanced counting system without being utterly convinced of it's validity nor fully understanding it's components, it may help to clear things up a bit and make it easier to implement in actual play due to a more solid understand facilitated by more logical reasoning.

Understand that I am far from an expert in the game of 21 and this is certainly not meant as an explanation of how such unbalanced systems work,(for there are many books on the subject more reputable and comprehensive than my mere rambling words written here), but simply a casual discussion where I wish to put forward my interpretation of such strategies as I understand them both to enhance my knowledge of their principles, or leave it to others to correct my erroneous thoughts.

Again I really feel dumb writing this using all these big, fancy, sophisticated words as I have heard only idiots use such convoluted language, but it is the only voice I can seem to write in with a natural feeling and tonality.

But anyway I am straying from my point and I wish not to lose you all before I have even begun as I believe this could be of great importance to others as well as myself. Basically I am wondering how we could ever pass off an unbalanced system as adequate on running count alone. Personally I myself, would like to be as precise and exact as possible in my counting and playing practices to extract the most I can for my expended effort, get the highest return on my investment. Yet it has seemed that we have long accepted the poor standard of playing a unbalanced counting strategy on running count alone. This of course is completely unacceptable to me and my exacting nature and I will explain why I find this so objectionalbe and undesirable.

Now if I understand correctly, an unbalanced count uses a running count to substitute rather crudely for a true count value. If the basic primise of an unbalanced counting system is that the point at which we have reliable information,(the pivot) is known and is some value other than zero netting an unbalance per deck we can use this information with compensation to make an accurate analysis of playing situations and their corresponding decisions.

For example let us take a very simple case, that of insurance. A commom strategy says to count all non-ten cards as +1 while all ten valued cards would count as -2. Given that their are 36 non-tens along with 16 tens in every deck, this would net a +4 value per deck as 36x1=36 and 16x-2=-32. Since insurance pays off at 2:1 it is therefore logical to make the bet when offered only when the ratio of non-ten valued cards to ten valued cards is 2:1 or less as we would have at least an even gamble if not a sizable advantage with the dealer showing a ace up. The way this system would work is simply to start at the count at zero and make the insurance wager any time the running total went above +3(greater than or equal to +4) in single deck games, or we could say above 4 times the number decks in use in multiple deck games(+8 for double deck, +16 for four decks, +24 for six decks or +32 for eight deck shoes).

The reason why this would work is again that there are 36 non-tens for every 16 tens in a standard deck of cards, and to make the insurance wager we would want that ratio to be not 36:16 but 32:16 or 2:1, so you can see that we need to get rid of four excess non-ten cards or roughly 3 non-tens for every ten card for the play and hence the wager to be profitable. Another way to keep this count would be to simply start the running count at the total unbalance -4 for single deck,(-8 for double deck, -16 for 4 decks and so on) and make the wager any time the count was zero or higher(positive) indicating that we have the advantage thus called the key count, the point at which we know we have an advantage. And also that number -4 where we started our running count is known as the IRC or the initial running count, which I would say is simply a method of compensating for easier implementation in actual playing, or balancing the unbalance of a system if you will.

And now to get to my point of the gross irresponsiblity of unbalanced strategies. In my humble opinion this nonsense of unbalance, IRC, pivot and key points with corresponding advantage is all hogwash as these are just different points or values which we assign to correlate with the available information, however no knowledge of which is not relative to a balanced count since it is simiply given a different number. Of course any balanced system uses a true count conversion while it is commonly believed that with an unbalanced ststem it is unnecessary, but to to ignore this calculation of vital importance would make the system strickly unreliable.

I know that I am not advocating unbalanced systems here, but please realize that I am not attacking them either. I am merely critiquing them to make those unaware wary of the fact that they may not be the best substitute for traditional balanced systems because of their lack of accuracy and reliability regardless of their simplicity.

Also note that in all truth I do actually play an unbalanced strategy, but do use a true count conversion thanks to the work of other dedicated players of this game we so reverently call Blackjack.

The most important thing you can do for yourself is bet your money properly. If you can't do that, everything else isn't even eyewash.

Unless you decide to risk ten years confinement by bring a computer into a (Nevada) casino, you must accept some compromises. Start somewhere. Buy Revere's book and play his Plus Minus strategy. Buy Million Dollar Blackjack and play Uston's equivalent with triggers, or whatever he called them, set by the number of decks played.

Did you read the email I sent? It was meant to provoke questions. Are you interested in playing or is your interest confined to posting here?

Actually I do have Revere's book as well as Uston's Million Dollar Blackjack and have read them both although they are quite dated. I have considered using the Uston APC but have not yet got around to the proper study of the system for as you say I am perpetually undecided. I have also thought about incorporating ace and five side counts as mentioned in both books but have been preoccupied with other how shall I say this gently, more important matters.

As for the fact of compromises I am not sure if I can do that, for making concessions is probably not a part of my nature, but I do believe we have to do the best with what we have until we have something better to do it with.

In my research I have come across a web page saying that there was a modification of Uston's Million Dollar Blackjack made Paul C. Kim where he made the stragety tables more accurate with use of computer technology not available in Uston's time. Are you aware of this version or whatever you might call it, and do you know from where it is available so I can get it?

P.S. For your information, I am interested in playing and not just in posting here althouth this is fun as well, but all in due time because I am not yet of the legal age to play in any casino that I know of.
And as for the matter of concealing a computer, I plan to do so with the knowledge I store in my brain soaking up the information I get here from knowledgable players like yourself and others who will so generously help me. And in time perhaps I will have the knowledge and experience to help others as some have helped me.

Thanks for your response, it was very thought provoking in that it posed alot of questions to which I must find answers.

PPS: Which e-mail are you talking about so I can double check, but I am sure I did because I check my mail frequently and read all blackjack stuff with dead seriousness.

sospres@hotmail.com

I sent you a large (virus free) attachment.

Pay attention to what Revere wrote. Although he died before you were born and his writings are dated, they are not out-dated. In his time this single book made more people system players than any other. His remark, "There is more money to be made playing blackjack than doing anything I know." was and is most compelling. He recommended that a first system be ace-included to insure that betting is in accordance with advantage, and that a beginner not start with the most complex count he can find. Harken to this advise.

Good luck to you.

Igor

Link below

Thank you for your comments and I shall heed your advice, well intentioned as it seems.

Oh, I was also wondering if the statement which Revere made that "There is more money to be made playing blackjack than doing anything I know" still holds today, because although I have never played I am well aware of the deteriorating playing conditions since his time up to the present and I fear that by the time I can play there may not be anything good left. But I suppose that only time will tell the tale. And that's another story. With a happy ending?
I hope so, but I guess we just have to wait and see.

Bon Chance! (Is that right?) Anyway, thanks I appreciate your response.

I understand that you are supposed to be, or let us say are some sort of an expert at the game of blackjack, and quite possibly even the best card counter in the world, so I hope you would take the time to explain to me why this be so, that a simple unbalanced running count would be superior for betting purposes.

I have read certain other of your postings and I have checked to make sure I quote you correctly here, but I believe you say that balanced card counting systems are more optimal for single deck games, keeping different side counts and are basically desirable if you are comfortable playing a balanced system. While you say unbalanced systems are favored for shall we say beginners first learning how to count(which I must admit is myself), and team play where signals are passed. I know this is not the point but I still do not see how a less complex system could be more efficient, especially if it is somewhat less accurate than a balanced strategy by your own words.

For example, I have read Knock Out Blackjack by Vancura and Fuchs and if my memory serves me correctly I think that it said that the IRC for the K-O count in single deck games was zero, and the key count or advantage point was +2. This just doesn't make sense to me. If card denominations of 2 thru 7 are counted as +1 and ace's and ten's as -1 while 8's and 9's are neutral with a 0 value can we not come up with a scenario where the running count were +2 or higher and we still did not have an advantage. Let's say that on the first round we are dealt a seven and an eight while the dealer has a seven up. Basic strategy dictates that we hit and we draw a nine and bust. But the play was correct because as we figured the dealer's hole card was a ten for a pat seventeen. These card values are seven +1, eight 0, seven +1, nine 0, and ten -1, okay bad example lets say instead of a nine you draw a seven very unlikely, but still possible. At this point with three sevens played along with an eight and only one ten the running count would be +2 with five cards dealt out. The strategy thus says we have an advantage, but it seems to me given the value of the seven; a mere +.28 advantage according to Griffin, we have really have an insignificant or trivial edge. I also know that that is what the +2 total defines or denotes a small edge but to me it just doesn't seem to be there. Oh, darn I am coming across very poorly.

These findings also lead me to other suspicions which I must say is probably the foundation upon which all card counting is based, that of the work of Edward Thorp, Julian Braun, and Peter Griffin among the other pioneers in this field, the theory of blackjack. If my understanding is sound, and I sure hope it is, the way certain deck compositions and playing situations were deemed advantageous was by putting them through trials and running computer simulations with certain card values depleted from the standard deck. It was discovered that the 5 had the greatest impact on the deck followed next by the ace, the ten and finally down through the lower ranks but not in chronological order. It was also found by them that when the deck was saturated or full of high cards it was to the player's advantage(rich), while it seen as a disadvantage to the player if the deck was full of low cards(poor). This does make sense and seem logical for certain situations ie. when the dealer has a stiff hand or when you want to double down, and it also provides for higher player totals and naturals, but in my opinion this data does not hold in other playing decisions. The bottom line is that I do not believe that simply taking a card value out of a deck can provide such substantial information as to build a complete theory out of as it is not solid and reliable, but inconclusive.

I do believe in card counting and keeping track of the cards as they are played out of the deck, but I am not sure if the conclusions which we have drawn are completely correct. I do know that previously played cards do have an impact on preceeding rounds as a result of the rules of non-independent trials, but I am not so sure we as card counters have really hit upon what that impact is and have fully learned to exploit it.

The truth is I am really quite skeptical about our knowledge on the subject and am not sure if I can believe what I have not personally validated especially when it seems to defy my common logic, however I am open to exploration and discovery and would like to continue this journey unto illumination.

P.S. If you don't mind my asking, what does that little (nt) by your name denote, some mark of prestige or something like that? I figured you would know as it was on your post along with some others that I have seen, and come to value and hold in high esteem. I would also be much obliged if you would so graciously tell me, for I am quite curious.

Oh lord, I am such an idiot. I spent 2 hours writing something just terrible. Terrible! Absolutely dreadful, what a waste of time.

Thank you very much sir, for your response is much appreciated. And by the way I believe that I have also seen one of your posts with a (nt) next to it and so I viewed it with great revere as I believe all your articles contain good quality information, providing significant insight into the more sophisticated aspects of twenty-one.

But now I know I won't read any more posts with an (nt) next to it, unless I can decipher invisible text, however I will continue to read your posts with enthusiam.

After the original Baldwin Group paper was published in the September 1956 edition of JASA, the late Alan Wilson, who had already worked out correct basic strategy and a viable (viable for the mid '50s, that is) playing strategy, lamented that now that the cat was out of the bag, a beatable blackjack game was sure to dissappear.

Que ser� ser�

I haven't read your entire post yet, but the reason unbalanced running counts are best for betting is due to the floating edge. You will have a greater edge at a +1 TC with 1 deck remaining that you would with the same TC and 3 decks remaining. Unless you adjust your TC for this effect, the unbalanced running count may actually be more useful for varying bets.

S e e ?

What is this floating edge and how does it come into play, what is its nature? Does it pose a significant threat if not taken into account? Also how would one adjust for its effect on the true count? Is this modification worth the effort in that it yields a greater accuracy and payoff, or is it better to just use an unbalanced running count?

I would think that an identical TC would have more of an influence on a single deck than three decks or some other multiple because of the value of individual cards where they become less significant as the number of decks in play increases, is this so or would it be for some other reason?

P.S. I hope you will take the time to look over the rest of my post as I believe it poses some very important questions for us all and challenges the very core of our beliefs.

LOL!