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.
