Conventional methods arrive at one number and a deck estimate for the most part. Therefore, it is understandable why ones abililty to handle wild swings is such a crucial part of the game.
Contrary to the belief of Norm, a column/percentage count will reduce variance. One can't beat it, but you can maintain it with what you do. Even more important, by what you don't do.
Theory of Blackjack, Peter Griffin is the original bible of blackjack or at least many say. But the basis is on the odds of the dealers busting. However, we have to finish our hands before the dealer ever makes a move. Therefore, a column count is based on improving ones hand or position.
A column of 2-4s and 5-7s provides the same cumulative results for the Effect of Removal of each individual tag value. I've not seen the formula used to arrived at the individual tags assigned by Mr. Griffin over 4 decades ago.
It seems too much value was given to the 2 and not enough value given to the 7. I suppose this provides a warm fuzzy feeling. Yet hundreds a books were written based around this formula. What is Norm's answer? Read more books. Now, why do I need to read more books that are just another version of the same? When is the last time you said to yourself, "I sure hope I get a 2 or I hope it's not a 2 in the hole"?
Let's suppose we make the 2 silent instead of the 8. Now the column structure is 3-5s and 6-8s. Have we hurt the decision on 16? No, we've actually improved it. Sitting with 13vs 2,3,4? A deck composition rich in 6,7,8 looks pretty damn good. An 8 will get you to 21 with a 13, 20 with a 12, 19 with a double on 11 and 18 with a 10. Was is it the 2 will do again? It gets you to 17 with a 15 and 18 with a 16. Big whup. So why are we making the 8 silent and not the 2 in a column count? Or why is it assigned a higher tag value than 7 in a conventional count?
Also, you have a max bet out on two hands and your facing an Ace. Most times you will have to insure both hands. The 8 is not accounted for and I'll be damned if it isn't in the hole giving the dealer 19. Game over. Good luck getting to 20 if you don't already have it. However, suppose the 2 is not counted and it's sitting in the hole. Now, because the deck is rich in 10s, the dealer has a decent chance of busting.
What not to do? A 60% deck composition of 9,10,As remains vs 40% 2-4s and 5-7s remain. The 8 is silent so we are using the formula on 48 cards. The difference, at 60%, can never be 3 more 2-4s than 5-7s or vice versa. Above 60%, yes? So you never bet into a deck that is richer in either of the other two columns.
A common count is 9 (A-9s) played 60% remain and 14 (2-4s and 5-7s) played 40% remain.
A 9-7-7 is perfect. A 9-8-6 or 9-6-8 are acceptable. You can't have a difference of 3. So a 9-5-9 or a 9-9-5 are betting into a deck that is also rich in another column. A conventional count will not reveal this information and an EITS will wonder why the hell you passed up the bet. Now you've ducked a risky bet that everyone else sees as viable. It's likely the cards in the lowest column will come out. So for the next hand you may have a 67% ratio vs balanced columns. This is what I mean by improving position.
Reply With Quote