Uston APC indices

I recently learned the Uston APC, and have memorized many of the indices, according to the information given in Uston's "MD Blackjack". My question is about the accuracy of these indices, since they were determined over 20 years ago. Does anyone know if there are now more accurate indices for this system, perhaps by using some type of blackjack software? If so, how could somebody access the more accurate count indices? What type of blackjack program would be necessary to figure out something like this?

One last question: If there are more accurate indices, would it make enough of a difference in ev to memorize the new numbers? Or would the difference be insignificant?

I've gambled low-stakes for awhile, and would like to make sure I am completely prepared if I decide to gamble for more serious cash. I'd appreciate any feedback that may help with some of the above questions. Thanks.

I have the SBA (statistical blackjack analyzer) and I can't recommend it strongly enough. It costs $149US. You can purchase it via BJmath.com
It can calculate nearly everything that you've ever thought you might need to know.
I haven't generated indices for the Uston APC, because I think that this count is a little too cumbersome. If you are proficient at it, it probably isn't worthwhile changing. But,if you get hold of some good simulation software, you will find that there are easier counts around that perform just as well or better. Such as Hi-Opt2 or Omega2.
As far as the gain in refining indices is concerned, I think the gains are fairly miniscule, and the real gains come from your discipline and cover. But then again, every small edge you can get for your efforts is worthwhile.

P.S. If you backcount too much, you may want to change your name to Barredcounter.

Good luck and good play.

By using a sim like SBA 5.5 you could run the numbers for the UAPC and find a slight difference. I would stick with the numbers you already know, and if by chance someone gives you these "newer" index numbers you could change the few that might be different. How many numbers have you put to memory so far? An excellent count by the way.

You picked one of the most difficult systems one can imagine. Not only is it a 3-level-count, it requires also a sidecount of aces.
For a beginner this might be a little bit too much.
Even for an advanced player I wouldn't recommand it unless he has the opportunity to access pitch games regularly where Uston APC is most efficient.
After several years of successful Hilo, I planned to switch to Wong's halves which is similar to Uston APC in difficulty.
When I realized that I would never be able to play it at a level where the higher efficiency wouldn't be offset by errors,I abandoned the project and decided to enhance on Hilo. I don't regret it.
May be you think it over.

Francis Salmon

I, too, have considered Wong Halves but rejected the idea due to more errors. I would be interested to know about enhancements to hi-lo. Thanks,
TJ

1) Use of more indices

2) Shuffle Tracking

3) More aggressive betting (not wait until TC+2)

4) Play only speedy games with few other players

Each of these measures will increase your win rate

Francis Salmon

Thanks for the response -

I've been adding more indices as I go along, up from the "Catch 22" to 35, with no rhyme or reason (just the ones that have stuck in my mind). I'm working on -1 thru 6 now. I also try to find fast games.

I've not done any real work with shuffle tracking except to try to cut rich "leftovers" to the top and bet more agressively thru that portion of the shoe. Shuffle tracking is my next project. I've read the Bishop and George C. I'd love to talk with experienced practioners about the art.

I'll also re-read BJA to check out optimal betting to see where I can get away with bigger bets before +2.

Are there any refinements for the 2 deck game? I mostly wong 6 deck shoes (fortunately, I'm blessed with patience).

I only play shoe games and would probably switch to an ace-neutral count for pitch games. With restricted bet spread,playing efficiency takes much more importance in double or single deck and we all know that Hilo is not best in that respect. Also shuffle tracking won't be possible.
A suggestion for tracking in shoe games: if you don't trust your abilities, try to cut small cards to the top. I call this safe tracking. Very efficient in deeply dealt shoes.

Francis Salmon