From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: BJ: Which counting system should I use?
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:09:39 GMT

I'm going to ask a newbie question, because it's so important that
I don't trust my own opinion: which counting system should I use?

I originally used High-Low.  During the last year I switched to
multiparameter Hi-Opt I for single deck, which is pretty awesome
for single deck but silly for double deck or more.  Moreover,
multiparameter strategy adjustments are tiring and time-consuming.  After
I've been up all night, I still can do the basics (e.g., true count
strategy adjustments) very well, but the side counts and other whistles
and bells tend to disappear.  So, I'm thinking of switching.  But to what?

I play single deck with a small spread, and as my bankroll grows I'm
finding double deck with a medium to big spread more and more appealing.
Some day I hope to have such a big bankroll that I have to play the
shoes.  I'd prefer to have aces included in the main count, because
an ace side count is difficult in double deck and shoe play, and
because I would like to minimize errors and CPU time in betting.

I'm considering sticking with multiparameter Hi-Opt I or switching to
one of these systems, in my current order of preference:

   1) Wong Halves doubled (optimal betting, 3rd level)
   2) Zen (compromise, 2nd level, not as good as even High-Low for betting)
   3) Uston APC (near optimal playing, 3rd level, ace side count required)
   4) Multiparameter High-Low (can just do High-Low for multiple decks)

Here are the count values and other data from the FAQ:

                  EXPLANATION OF COUNTING SYSTEMS
  ===========================================================================
  COUNTING           COUNTING VALUES         "BEST" EFFICIENCY  CORRELATION
  SYSTEMS      2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  X  A  SOURCE  PLAY+ace  BET+ace INSURE
  --------     ----------------------------  ------  -------- -------- ------
  Wong Halves  1  2  2  3  2  1  0 -1 -2 -2  Wong     57-67+  .99      .72-.85
  Zen          1  1  2  2  2  1  0  0 -2 -1  Snyder   63-67+  .97      .85-.91
  Uston APC    1  2  2  3  2  2  1 -1 -3  0  Uston    69-69+  .91-.99  .90
  High-Low     1  1  1  1  1  0  0  0 -1 -1  Wong     51-63   .97      .76-.85
  Hi-Opt I     0  1  1  1  1  0  0  0 -1  0  Humble   61-63   .88-.97  .85

I really should run simulations to see which system provides the best return
on investment.

Right now I'm planning on switching to Wong Halves doubled, using regular
true count (as opposed to Uston style half deck true counts), which
unfortunately makes for strategy adjustment indicies >+30 that are
worth knowing.  I plan to use an ace adjustment for strategy on single
decks (neutralizing the aces in the same way regardless of the strategy
situation), but to not side count aces on double deck (which gives me
a rather poor insurance correlation.)  I'll memorize two different tables
of adjustments, one for single deck adjusted for aces, and one for
double deck not adjusted for aces.

Opinions?  Have I missed any systems that would perform very well on both
double deck and single deck (and maybe shoes)?

-- 
Michael Hall            \ Happiness is... making a big cover bet off the top of
NASA Ames Research Center\ a freshly shuffled deck and getting a blackjack,
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \ while the pit boss is watching.

Newsgroups: rec.gambling