Open Archive 1
[ Read Responses | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next ]
Re: Simple systems are the best.
Posted by Pete Moss on May 24, 1997 at 04:01:46, in response to Simple systems are the best., posted by TheGlove on April 16, 1997 at 17:22:05
Why can't I do both? Develop an act and improve my counting system?
I've got three good acts down pretty well I think will serve for most situations. I'll look to add to my repetoire.
The reason I prefer a simple main count is that it is extensible. Using a simple main count with good betting correleation, you have the brain-power in reserve to add play-adjustment side counts to it, while keeping the option of reverting to the base strategy if need be. Going from .97 or .98 betting correlation to .99 with a difficult multi-level count is just gilding the lilly, and you have to think hard ALL the time.
A simple system with add-ons is a whole kit of systems, one easy, some not quite so easy.
I've added a multi-card side count (for playing strategy) to the K-O tags that probably would seem a little bizzarre if I didn't explain the rationale behind it. Suffice it to say, it boosts the playing efficiency to .65 and the insurance correlation to .88 while maintaining a .98 betting correlation with the K-O tags and true count conversion. Simulations show that the added EV, plus the bigger optimal bets due to reduced risk should translate to 25% more money out the door. I can live with that.
I'm amply practiced at it (Casino Verite), and ready to give it a try next week in Reno. (I find it gratifying that Casino Verite doesn't beep at me nearly as often on insurance decisions when I have it doing an exact ten-count to check up on me.) In Reno, if I find I need to drop the side-count for a bit while putting on an act or whatever, hey that's okay. Heck, I have sometimes quit counting altogether for a while for cover purposes. Just chatting with the pit critter while maintaining eye-contact that precludes the possibility of counting can work wonders sometimes.
One more thing. The simulations I have run so far have assumed correct betting. In practice that is never possible to do consistently, due to heat. But you can almost always make the right play with complete safely -- unless it is something real heaty like splitting tens in a checks-play situation that might get the play called out. If you stand on 9-5 vs. dealer's ten with a small bet out, they will probably just think you are goofy unless they have a computer upstairs analyzing you. That's a good reason not to sniff at better play adjustments, I think. In single deck you can't wong out much, so most of your time is spent playing into negative situations. You can only go so far with bet spread to remedy that.
One time when I won after standing on 7-7 vs. dealer's ten, the dealer commented, "You were lucky," and out of the corner of my eye I saw the lady pit critter look over to see what happened. That is a *book play* at single deck, but I saw the l.p.c. shaking her head as though thinking, "He doesn't look quite THAT stupid." At the same joint, I doubled on soft 20, the dealer called it out, and the pit critter lead a chorus of loud, hooting laughter -- in which I, having presumably just left a party (in zoot suit and novelty tie), enthusiastically participated. Act and system work hand in hand.
Pete
Responses
The Open Archive 1 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.