Archive for June, 2009
Author: admin
Thus, in 1983, the Red Seven Count was born. When the first edition of this book was published, many blackjack authorities expressed disbelief that such a simple counting system could be so strong. Peter Griffin, whose monumental Theory of Blackjack (GBC, 1979) established him as the game's reigning math guru—a position he held deservedly until his untimely death in 1998—reviewed the first edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack in Casino & Sports #23 (1983):
Arnold Snyder's latest offering will undoubtedly prove to be a mild disappointment. . . I have a developing sense that Snyder enjoys being different and provocative. This probably accounts for his advocacy of the 'Red Seven' system . . . Snyder bases his assertion of the dominance of unbalanced counts over balanced counts on the existence of a 'pivot'… What Snyder appears unaware of is that a balanced count also has a pivot, and that pivot is zero. This locates a far more useful and common point of reference…
Given Griffin's stature in the blackjack community, and the fact that I had developed the Red Seven system almost entirely from the data in Theory of Blackjack, which was my bible, I was crushed. Within weeks of his review, I was being barraged with letters from those who had already purchased Blackbelt in Blackjack, asking me if I had revised my opinion about the strength of the Red Seven, in light of Griffin's review. Many pointed out that Joel Friedman, another prominent gambling authority at that time, in that same issue of Casino & Sports, also expressed disappointment, pointing out that the Red Seven was weaker than traditional counting systems.
I had claimed in that first edition that despite its running count simplicity and a playing strategy that advised only half-a-dozen changes from basic strategy, the Red Seven system would capture 80% of the profit potential of the traditional, balanced point-count systems in multiple-deck games, even when those systems used over 100+ strategy changes. This was in the pre-personal computer days of blackjack, when you couldn't just sit down and whip out a few million hands to test a system. If you weren't a programmer yourself with access to a million-dollar mainframe through some university or major corporation, simulation testing of blackjack systems was not feasible.
Despite Griffin's reputation, and his unparalleled comprehension of blackjack's mathematics, I felt certain that the Red Seven would perform as I claimed, capturing 80% of the profit potential of the more difficult true count systems.
So, I enlisted Peter Griffin's colleague at California State University, Dr. John Gwynn, Jr., to test the Red Seven Count via computer simulation. I assured Dr. Gwynn that regardless of the results he obtained, and even if they proved the Red Seven system to be far less powerful than I'd claimed, I would publish his results in Blackjack Forum exactly as I received them.
Win At Blackjack - MIT 21 Blackjack SystemHow To Win At Blackjack Online Blackjack
Tags: blackjack, game, online casino
Posted in 
Tags: 
Author: admin
In 1969, a Berkeley math professor, using the pseudonym "Jacques Noir," wrote a book called Casino Holiday, which contained an "unbalanced" ten count system which required no true count conversions. Within a few years, more refined versions of Noir's running-count system were published by Stanley Roberts, and then John Archer. The power of the Noir count derives from its built-in imbalance, which makes it very simple to play. Tens are counted as -2, and all non-tens, including aces, are counted as +1.
We call this an unbalanced count because the value of the complete deck, when all point values are added together, does not equal zero. Because of the imbalance, however, no true count adjustments are necessary for many important playing decisions.
If you count down a deck using this count, any time your running count is +4, then the ratio of non-tens to tens is exactly 2 to 1, making this running count a perfect insurance indicator. This count has one major weakness—its betting efficiency: that is, the count is weak at telling you how much to bet. The ten-count has a betting correlation of only 72%. Compare this to the Hi-Lo count's 97% correlation.
Quite a few players still chose to use this unbalanced ten-count, despite its betting weakness, because they did not consider their abilities in making true-count conversions to be very accurate anyway. Both Roberts and Archer advised players to keep a side-count of aces, which could greatly improve the poor betting efficiency of the Noir count, but because it was that much more difficult to keep a side count, then use it to adjust the primary count, many Noir counters simply ignored their advice.
Why, I asked myself, was this unbalanced ten-count, which had been around for more than a decade, the only unbalanced count system ever invented? Why not an unbalanced point count system designed to indicate perfect betting by running count, rather than perfect insurance?
Online Casinos €/£/$800 Casino BoniOnline Casinos US Players Welcome
Tags: blackjack, online casino