| Самая эффективная система счета в мире! ID:46739 |
Ср, 23 апреля 2003 00:00 [#] [») |
|
| Garry Baldy |
|
Форумы Покер.ру
|
|
Натолкнулся тут на новый опус Арнольда Снайдера, в
котором он разработал фактически чуть ли не самую
эффективную систему счета в мире, если не считать
computer-optimal. Называется The Bishop's Headache
(Головная Боль Епископа). Вкратце суть такова -
всего-навсего держится ШЕСТЬ побочных счетов. В качестве
дополнения рекомендуется диета из стимуляторов.
Публикуется без разрешения автора системы специально для
того, чтобы раз и навсегда отмести вопрос о самой
"лучшей" системе счета.
Кстати, таблицы индексов также имеются  )
Переводить, конечно, лень.
Удачи.
Garry Baldy.
*********************
The Bishop's Headache: A Card-Counting System for the
Truly Obsessed
There was a time in the late 70s when I was compulsively
creating new count systems, using them for three or four
months on single deck, then creating a stronger system.
This is probably the strongest count I ever came up with
before getting interested in simplicity and publishing
the Zen count in 1982 with only 25 indices—a radical
concept at the time.
Let’s call this count the Bishop’s Headache count. It
has a playing efficiency of around 97% with all the side
counts. The betting correlation is around 99% with the
full system. With only the first three counts, the
betting correlation is probably 97-98% and the playing
efficiency is probably only around 70%.
This count was not really meant for shoe games. The
value for both camo and advantage is very strong in
single deck games and of some value in two-deckers. This
type of approach could also be used in single deck games
such as SuperFun 21, BJ pays 6:5, etc. in order to get
an edge with a much smaller spread than would otherwise
be required. However, the index numbers for these games
would be very different from the index numbers for
regular blackjack.
One way this count system is different from most
card-counting systems, even those with side counts, is
that it uses “balanced” side counts. Like all balanced
counts, a balanced side count is one that starts at the
number zero and has some cards valued plus and some
cards valued minus, so that, by the end of a full deck,
the opposing card values cancel each other out and the
count returns to zero. For example, the “Third Count” in
this system is the 6, 2 count, in which the 6 has a
value of +1 and the 2 has a value of –1. The reason that
this system uses balanced side counts as opposed to side
counts of individual zero-value cards, is that at the
same time it helps you add in the value of the card you
want (the card or cards most important to your playing
decision), it subtracts out the value of another card
that weakens your decision information.
For example, for the decision 15 v dealer 10, at the
same time that we add in the value of the 6, which is
the most important card for this decision, we subtract
the value of the deuce, which would only give you a
lousy hand of 17. For 14 v dealer 10, when we add in the
important values of the 6 and 7, we also subtract out
the counts on the 2 and 3, which, again, weaken your
info. Your playing efficiency is much stronger if you’re
not counting the values of cards that work against you
in a particular decision. When you’re hitting a 14
against a dealer ten, for example, you don’t want a
deuce counting as a positive.
Here are the building block components of the Bishop’s
Headache count system:
Primary Count
2, 3, 4, 5 = +1
X = -1
(X means all tens, including picture cards)
Secondary Count
A = +4
X = -1
Third Count
6 = +1
2 = -1
Fourth Count
7 = +1
3 = -1
Fifth Count
8 = +1
4 = -1
Sixth Count
9 = +1
5 = -1
In the second count, I balanced the aces against the
tens because it allowed me to know precisely how rich or
poor in aces the deck was, compared to the tens. For
example, if the tens were strong in the primary count,
and the ace-ten count was neutral, I knew the aces were
also strong, because a zero count on the ace-ten count
indicates that the aces and tens have the same strength.
This count allows you to get the ace info you need into
your running count to make your betting decisions. For
every +3 in this particular side count, you add +1 to
your running count, then make your true count adjustment
for your bet decisions. This weights the aces according
to their actual value for betting. The secondary count
will also help you make play decisions on the few hands
where the ace is important, such as doubling down with a
total of ten.
The way the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth counts work
is that you add the straight adjustment for the
appropriate side balanced count to your primary running
count, then make the true count adjustment, before
playing the hand. In other words, a +1 on the third
count adds a +1 to your running count when you have a
playing decision to make that requires this particular
side count.
In the third count, the system balances 6 against 2
primarily for a player hand of 15. In addition, when the
player total is 15 and the dealer total is 10, the value
of this count should be doubled--the six is that
important for this hand when the dealer has a 10
showing. For other decisions with a player hand of 15,
the value of the count is not doubled, but simply added
to your running count. Let’s say the count on my primary
count is 0, the count on my third count is +1, and I am
facing a decision on 15 v dealer 10. Because I am facing
a 10, I add +2 to my running count. If I were facing a
dealer 9, I would only add +1 to my running count.
This doubling rule applies with every card that is the
important card the player needs when holding a stiff v a
dealer 10, i.e., the value of the 7-3 count is doubled
when the player has a 14 v dealer 10. This will be
explained further when the strategy charts are posted soon.
Also, you want to use all the side counts that apply for
any particular hand. When you have a player hand of 14,
for example, you want to incorporate info from both the
6 and 7 side counts. Doing this will automatically
adjust your primary count to include both the important
6s and 7s and exclude the worthless 2s and 3s. In this
example, if my primary count is zero, and I am +1 on the
6s, and +2 on the 7s, my primary running count would be
adjusted to +3 when playing a hand totaling 14 (+6 if
I’m facing a dealer 10). Note that by combining the side
count info with my primary count, the actual count I
would be using for this particular decision would in
effect be 4, 5, 6, 7 vs. 10, because the 2s and 3s are
neutralized by combining the primary count with the side
counts.
In the same fashion, I would use the side counts for the
6, 7, and 8 for a player hand of 13, and the 6, 7, 8,
and 9 counts for all player hands totaling 12.
I believe you won’t have much of a problem remembering
which side counts to use for the various decisions. Most
of them are pretty logical. However, this too will be
covered in the post with the strategy charts.
I will post the strategy table (that is, the index
numbers chart) within a day or two. The way it works
with the Bishop’s Headache count is that you memorize
only ONE strategy chart. You do NOT memorize a full
chart for the primary count, then five different charts
for the side count adjustments, as you would do with
Hi-Opt I, Hi-Opt II, and other side-count systems I’ve
seen. This is a significant change, and makes the
Headache count somewhat less of a headache. The chart
assumes you have already made the side-count
adjustments, thus you simply remember the index numbers
in that one chart. The chart looks like any index number
chart (the chart for Hi-Lo, for example,) except that
the index numbers are lower because the actual cards
used to determine the index number are more accurate.
The index numbers are easy to make with Sam Case’s
index-number calculating program. (I’ll whip them up
tonight or tomorrow.) Note: Because of the building
block structure of the Headache count, I will be posting
five charts, although you will actually be using only
one of them, depending on how many of the building
blocks you are working with. The strategy chart changes
a lot based on how many of the balanced side counts you
are using. Of the five charts I post, the first will
assume you’re keeping only the primary count and ace-ten
side count. The second chart will be for when you’ve
added the 6-2 side count. The third chart will be for
when you’ve added the 7-3 side count, the fourth for
when you’ve added the 8-4 side count, and the fifth for
when you’ve added the 9-5 side count. (You should add
the side counts in this order.) Again, I’ll also try to
get Sam Case’s program posted so you can generate your
own numbers.
Using This Monstrosity
To keep six balanced counts, I found it helpful to use a
combination of number and alphabet counts.
To keep the first three counts, my starting count was
0-50-M. (That’s zero, fifty, M.) The first number (zero
at the start of the deck) kept the primary running
count. The second number (always 50 at the start of a
new deck), was for the ace-ten secondary count. I found
it helpful to start this count at 50 so that I did not
have to deal with minuses and pluses in multiple counts.
The letter “M” equaled zero for the third count (the 6-2
side count). To avoid having to remember long chains of
numbers, I simply used the alphabet for the third count.
The letter K meant –2. The letter P meant +3. In order
to use an alphabet count, you must memorize the alphabet
forward and backward, and also learn to count by two or
three letters at a time forward and backward. (I can do
it to this day, and it is a very successful routine at
parties.) You must also memorize the plus/minus values
of each letter.
This will allow you to keep three counts simultaneously,
only one of which uses the normal plus/minus designation.
The second three counts (fourth, fifth, and sixth
counts) are simply a second set of 050M values. So, you
would start a new deck, with the full system, with a
count of 0-50-M-0-50-M.
The Bishop’s Headache is not a breeze—it works best
after a lot of practice and with a steady diet of
Excedrin. On the other hand, it is extremely powerful on
some games, and I can tell you it is actually usable. If
you try it, forget about counting down a deck in under
20 seconds with the full system--I’d be seriously
impressed if anyone could count down a deck with all six
counts in under 40-45 seconds. But if you can get under
a minute, you can probably play at table speed in most
games.
|
|
|
| Re: Самая эффективная система счета в мире! ID:46742 ответ на 46739 |
Чт, 24 апреля 2003 00:00 («] [#] [») |
|
|
Это старая байка Снайдера и имеет следующую предисторию:
-Some time back, I developed a counting system, which I humbly dubbed "Snyder's Folly," based on a
combination of numbers, subtle body postures, and code words, which allowed me to keep perfect
track of the exact number of every denomination of card remaining in a single-deck. I practiced with it for
awhile, got pretty quick at counting down a deck, then gave a demonstration to Sam Case. He dealt
about half a dozen hands to me, which I played out, then he asked me what my count was.
"It's 5 duckboy 3," I answered.
"What does that mean to you?" he asked.
"It means there are seven l0s remaining, one ace, no twos, one 3, two 4s, no 5s, three 6s, no 7s, no 8s
and one 9."
Sam spread out the cards, put them in order, and, as I expected, my count was 100% accurate. "That's
incredible," he said. "Do it again." We ran through a few more decks with him dealing, and at various
points he would ask me for my deck analysis, which always proved accurate. Then the inevitable
happened. He dealt himself an ace up and asked me if I wanted to take insurance. Five seconds later,
with no response from me, he said, "What's wrong? You can't take this long to decide on the insurance
bet."
"Well," I explained, "I know you've got eleven tens, three aces, four deuces, one 3, four 4s, two 5s, two
6s, two 7s, one 8, and three 9s remaining. I know this because my count is 9 Farley 3 and I'm sitting
with my weight on my right cheek. But I can't make my insurance decision till I tally up all these damn
numbers and figure out the ten ratio."
Sam laughed. "Your incredible new counting system sucks, Snyder. If you can't even make an
insurance decision, how do you make your other strategy decisions?"
"Well," I admitted. "I can't use this count for strategy decisions. It's too complicated. I have to play basic
strategy when I keep this count." Sam laughed harder. "What the hell good is this counting system?
Can't you even devise a set of strategy tables for it?"
"I could come up with a great set of strategy table for it using Griffin's book," I explained. "But it would
take me too long to make my decisions at the tables. And it would also be too much to memorize."
"Then what good is Snyder's Folly?" Sam asked. "It's a waste of time. You're counting for no reason.
You're not using the count data!"
"It's good for one thing," I confessed. "Impressing other card counters. You know I'm not in this game
for the money, Sam. I just enjoy being a big shot. Wait'll I demonstrate this count to Stanford Wong, or
Ken Uston, or Peter Griffin . . . Why, they'll go nuts over it!"
"Just pray you don't have to make an insurance decision," Sam scoffed.
А таблицы он все таки сделал, они у меня есть, но если честно даже не смотрел их. Года три как.
Удачи!
|
|
|
