- Most Effective Card Counting System Chart
- Most Effective Card Counting System Based
- Most Effective Card Counting System Definition
- Most Effective Card Counting System
- Most Effective Card Counting Systems
By There is no such thing as a 'best' Obviously, the answer to this question is not as easy as it appears. Several approaches have been used in the past to evaluate card counting systems. One analytical approach is the calculation of several performance parameters (e.g., playing, betting, and insurance efficiencies). The results are then used to approximate the potential of one system over another. Another approach that is used is to simulate each system against typical game conditions on a high speed computer. Simulations can provide an accurate real-world estimate of the advantages and win-rates that are possible in playing a particular system.
I am of the opinion that the most difficult higher level single parameter card counting system (i.e. no 'side counts') are easier to play with accuracy, than the 'simplest' level one multi-parameter card counting systems. Most card counters, including serious professionals, should stick with level one single-parameter card counting systems. Variations of Ace to Five Card Counting System. Variations of the ace five count have been around for a long time. According to Shackleford's site, a variation of the ace five count is suggested in Beat the Dealer, by Edward Thorp and also in Playing Blackjack as a Business, by Lawrence Revere. This is a balanced count but for it to be at its most effective, one must keep a separate count of the Aces, especially for betting purposes. The Hi-Opt 1 count, when used with a sidecount of Aces and all of the.
However, the problem with coming up with a ‘best' card counting system. Instead of a single-level ‘unbalanced' count you could assign more accurate point values to each card and determine true counts by the exact number of decks or cards remaining. You could improve ‘playing' efficiency by assigning a ‘zero' to the Ace and side counting each of them. You could also side count other cards such as 7s, 8s, and 9s thus improving your play against specific hands. You could also incorporate play variations (changes to basic strategy) based on specific counts by remembering ‘every' index number for ‘every' play possible. To improve the accuracy of your insurance decisions you could also keep a separate count of all the tens in the deck or shoe. Of course, you don't want to forget all the ‘practical' advice each system offers in regard to betting, playing, camouflage, and other tips and tricks of the trade.
I believe the above comment was one of the most important suggestions ever made about card counting. Griffin suggested that it may be better to keep your base count simple to allow your brain the ability to perform other tasks and to utilize other sources of information. These other sources of information can often improve the potential of a single-level count over an advanced 2- or 3-level count that doesn't use this information. This information includes side counts, shuffle tracking, ace location strategies, key card techniques, and dealer errors. My own experience at card counting has shown that Griffin was probably right.
Human error is another reason to keep it simple. The most advanced card counting system may be one that perfectly balances theoretical power and your human ability to execute it accurately.
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
- The'Best' Card Counting System: A Comparison of the Top 100 by Copyright © 1994 – 2020 All Rights Reserved
FAQ 11: Originally published in Volume 6 Issue 4 of Blackjack Review Magazine
RETURN | NEXT FAQ↑ 1 A single-level count assigns point values in such a manner that the non-zero point values are the same in absolute value, namely +1 or -1. The single-level Hi-Lo count, for example, assigns 2 – 6 as +1, 7 – 9 as 0, and Tens and Aces as -1.
I intend to prove to you, however, that by tweaking the strategy a bit, the 'optimum martingale' as I call it can be used to mask card-counting detectors employed by the casinos.
I found that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, reseting(sic) your bet to the original low was most effective when you reset after a three-hand losing streak.
Just show the proof, if you have one.
Um... 1st) you can't go through past results and prove that a useless strategy is optimized by setting a certain parameter. a) that's not how you prove things. b) The martingale is ultimately useless regardless of your reset point.
2nd) how did you make the leap to counting? How does martingale + counting = money? Your 'experiment' specifically left out counting!
I just reread the original post. The poster just went through over a 1000 hands playing the martingale, and then figured out with the SMALL sample size, what would have been the optimal reset point. Explicitly leaving out counting.
Um... 1st) you can't go through past results and prove that a useless strategy is optimized by setting a certain parameter. a) that's not how you prove things. b) The martingale is ultimately useless regardless of your reset point.
2nd) how did you make the leap to counting? How does martingale + counting = money? Your 'experiment' specifically left out counting!
I agree about the total lack of any actual proof at all, but I'm kind of intrigued by the premise. I think a 1-8 unit martingale would be a fairly effective way to mask a 16 or 32 unit jump bet when counting.
It's not your martingale that's making you win, it's the counting. Any simulation or real hands played w/ the martingale that shows a profit on a -EV game simply means it's not a large enough sample size. Placing -EV bets results in a loss no matter what betting system you use (unless you're martingaling with no table limits and an infinite bankroll)
You're just using the 'betting system' as cover for increasing your bets, which isn't a bad idea.
Nothing like doubling your bets if you're losing as the count's skyrocketing. When you finally win, if the pit boss is around, breathe a deep sigh of relief and say something like 'good old martingale, never fails!' and maybe start talking about all the money you win at roulette doing it :D
Um... 1st) you can't go through past results and prove that a useless strategy is optimized by setting a certain parameter. a) that's not how you prove things. b) The martingale is ultimately useless regardless of your reset point.
2nd) how did you make the leap to counting? How does martingale + counting = money? Your 'experiment' specifically left out counting!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely, you did not read the post. I go into great detail about when to employ counting, and the answer is constantly. You keep a running total of the count without adjusting your bet to the count. That is how you set the card-counting detectors off, if you play like a computer. You will, however, let the count effect your gameplay. Only when the count is extremely high or low will you let it effect your betting, i.e. continuing to double after a win (no reset), doubling past three loses if the count justifies it, or halving your bets per hand when the count is incredibly low. (this is tricky because you need experience to know when to actually let the count effect your bet)
Other than that, the only goal of my experiment was to optimize the martingale system as an undercount. I cannot test two variables in the same experiment, let alone three (those three variables being optimum reset, when to employ counting per gameplay, and when to employ counting per betting). I mean, do I really have to run yet another test on how much card counting improves your game? I aimed to eliminate play most counters employ in order to separate myself from most counters, and I do so by gearing count information towards cardplay in a low-risk environment, and sparsely gearing count information towards the bet on the table.
Um... 1st) How else am I supposed to prove the optimum reset point without reseting parameters from past results. a) You can't complain about a theory until you read it with an open mind. b) That's not how you get taken seriously. c) the martingale is useless, as I discussed in the first sentence.
2nd) I'm not looking to write a book, I'm looking to optimize an undercount that isn't completely pedestrian.
'You're just using the 'betting system' as cover for increasing your bets, which isn't a bad idea.'
Most card counters flat-bet until the count is high or low enough to make an impact, some have a continuously exponential or linear relationship with the count or their bet. I have neither :)
f2d understands.
'You're just using the 'betting system' as cover for increasing your bets, which isn't a bad idea.'
Most card counters flat-bet until the count is high or low enough to make an impact, some have a continuously exponential or linear relationship with the count or their bet. I have neither :)
What exactly does your betting look like? Does the Martingale pattern hold most of the time? Or does the count disrupt the Martingale enough that your bets appear random?
What exactly does your betting look like? Does the Martingale pattern hold most of the time? Or does the count disrupt the Martingale enough that your bets appear random?
He says he'll martingale up to 4 units (3 times = 1, 2, 4) if the count's even or negative, and unlimited if the count's positive.
This way he just looks like another idiot trying a dumb betting system instead of a counter.
While betting this way surely isn't optimal for RoR, it may actually have a larger overall EV if it allows you to spread say, 1 - 20 instead of 1 - 8
I still reject the premise that 1000 is enough trials to prove a theory, but I think there might be some promise here to deflect attention from card counting. Especially in a big corporate casino where it can all be done on one table. Where I run into trouble is that around here, limits are $5 to $200 or $25 to $500. I'd need to go find a $5-$1000 (closest is in northern IA) or $25-$10k (closest is in northern IN) table to really make it work. Oh, and I'd need to find $10k, too...:-)
I think a willingness to act a little would help the situation a good bit. What youd do is play 'scared' to bet more than 4 or 8 units in the martingale when the count is negative, then 'get the guts' to bet big and 'pay yourself back' when the count is high.
I still reject the premise that 1000 is enough trials to prove a theory, but I think there might be some promise here to deflect attention from card counting. Especially in a big corporate casino where it can all be done on one table. Where I run into trouble is that around here, limits are $5 to $200 or $25 to $500. I'd need to go find a $5-$1000 (closest is in northern IA) or $25-$10k (closest is in northern IN) table to really make it work. Oh, and I'd need to find $10k, too...:-)
It'll also help if you buy in for EXACTLY like 6 bets or something.
Example:
Your smallest bet is 25
Buy in for 1575 and stack your chips in front of you in the following stacks:
25
Most Effective Card Counting System Chart
Most Effective Card Counting System Based
50100
200
Most Effective Card Counting System Definition
400Most Effective Card Counting System
800
Most Effective Card Counting Systems
I dont think anything could possibly scream sucker louder then that.
Plus if/when you actually USE those 400 or 800 bets (which would be a whopping 32-1 spread) it'll draw a lot less heat if it's prestacked since the pit boss knows you'll be doing it sooner or later. You won't be the first person to try martingaling at the blackjack table. Im sure plenty of people have done this and busted out in short order.
- Page 2 of 3
