Different Card Counting Systems
By There is no such thing as a “best” Obviously, the answer to this question is not as easy as it appears. Several approaches have been used in the past to evaluate card counting systems. One analytical approach is the calculation of several performance parameters (e.g., playing, betting, and insurance efficiencies). The results are then used to approximate the potential of one system over another. Another approach that is used is to simulate each system against typical game conditions on a high speed computer. Simulations can provide an accurate real-world estimate of the advantages and win-rates that are possible in playing a particular system.
IT'S HARD TO LEARN. First, you have to learn about the rule variations (things like 'double after. With base 10 being a counting system based on fingers, if you bring in the toes, then you can have a base-20 system. Base 20 shows up in French, where 80 is “quatre-vingts,” or “four twenties.”. In Danish, 50 is “halvtreds,” or “two and a half times twenty.”.
However, the problem with coming up with a ‘best’ card counting system. Instead of a single-level ‘unbalanced’ count you could assign more accurate point values to each card and determine true counts by the exact number of decks or cards remaining. You could improve ‘playing’ efficiency by assigning a ‘zero’ to the Ace and side counting each of them. You could also side count other cards such as 7s, 8s, and 9s thus improving your play against specific hands. You could also incorporate play variations (changes to basic strategy) based on specific counts by remembering ‘every’ index number for ‘every’ play possible. To improve the accuracy of your insurance decisions you could also keep a separate count of all the tens in the deck or shoe. Of course, you don’t want to forget all the ‘practical’ advice each system offers in regard to betting, playing, camouflage, and other tips and tricks of the trade.
I believe the above comment was one of the most important suggestions ever made about card counting. Griffin suggested that it may be better to keep your base count simple to allow your brain the ability to perform other tasks and to utilize other sources of information. These other sources of information can often improve the potential of a single-level count over an advanced 2- or 3-level count that doesn’t use this information. This information includes side counts, shuffle tracking, ace location strategies, key card techniques, and dealer errors. My own experience at card counting has shown that Griffin was probably right.
Human error is another reason to keep it simple. The most advanced card counting system may be one that perfectly balances theoretical power and your human ability to execute it accurately.
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
- The”Best” Card Counting System: A Comparison of the Top 100 by Copyright © 1994 – 2020 All Rights Reserved
FAQ 11: Originally published in Volume 6 Issue 4 of Blackjack Review Magazine
RETURN NEXT FAQ↑1 A single-level count assigns point values in such a manner that the non-zero point values are the same in absolute value, namely +1 or -1. The single-level Hi-Lo count, for example, assigns 2 – 6 as +1, 7 – 9 as 0, and Tens and Aces as -1.
There are many different blackjack card-counting systems but they all have the same objective: to provide a simple method of calculating when the odds are in your favor and therefore when you should increase your stake on a particular hand.
Let’s look at some of the more common systems in use and judge them against four key criteria. These are:
- Ease of Learning and Use (E)
- Playing Efficiency (PE)
- Betting Correlation (BC)
- Insurance Correlation (IC)
Ease of Learning and Use is measured on a simple scale of 1 to 100 with 1 being the hardest and 100 the easiest system to learn and use. The other three criteria need some explanation.
Playing Efficiency is a term used to describe the accuracy of a specific system. It is typically expressed as a percentage and the closer it is to 100%, the more efficient the system is in defining the correct playing decision. Efficiencies are typically between 50% and 75%.
Betting Correlation is a measure of how good a system is in providing information on when to increase or decrease the size of bet. It is normally expressed as a decimal, for example 0.92, which means that a count with such a betting correlation is correct 92% of the time in defining the correct size of bet. Correlations are normally upwards of 90%.
Insurance Correlation is a measure of how well a blackjack card counting system indicates a correct decision when insurance betting. When the dealer has an up-card which is an ace, players are offered the choice of taking “insurance” before the dealer checks his other card. The bet is independent of the main wager. Typical correlation figures are 70% +
Hi-Lo System
This is probably the most common system and is very popular with people beginning to learn how to card count. It is explained on other pages here but it scores pretty well on our criteria. Ease of use is typically scored at around 65, with playing efficiency of 0.51, betting correlation of 0.97 and insurance correlation of 0.76.
REKO System
This is a more efficient system generally than the Hi-Lo system. It works using the following card count:
- Cards of value between 2 and 7 are counted as +1
- 10 and ace cards are counted as -1
- Other cards require no count.
The simplicity of the REKO system makes it ideal for multi-deck games and the more decks are used in a game, the more powerful the system becomes. It is known as an unbalanced system because the count is not started at zero. To define the starting count you simply multiply the number of decks being used by -2. So if 8 decks are in use the starting count is -16 (8 x -2).
The logic here is that the automatic assumption is that the game favors the house. Increased betting activity relies on the count passing zero and moving into positive numbers. Its scores against our criteria are: E = 8; PE = 0.55; BC = 0.98; IC = 0.78
Zen Count System
This is an older system and dates back to 1983. It’s a balanced system, which means the count starts at zero. The card count values are:
- 8 or 9 count as zero
- 7 counts as +1
- 4, 5 and 6 count as +2
- 2 and 3 count as +1
- Ace is counted as -1
- 10 or above count as -2
You can see from this that the system is more difficult to learn, and the general opinion is that the increased complexity is probably not worth the effort. Its criteria scores are: E = 4; PE = 0.63; BC = 0.96; IC = 0.85
Wong Halves System
One of the most difficult systems, this is for the more advanced players only. The card count values are:
Easiest Card Counting Systems
- 8 counts as a zero
- 9 counts as -0.5
- 7 counts as 0.5
- 6 counts as 1
- 5 counts as 1.5
- 3 and 4 counts as 1
- 2 counts as 0.5
- Ace counts as -1
- 10 or more counts as -1
This is by far the most complex system reviewed here. Again it’s a balanced system but the sheer complexity of count is difficult when compared with the more simple system outlined above. Its criteria scores are: E = 2.5; PE = 0.56; BC = 0.99; IC = 0.72
Red Seven System
An easier, unbalanced system developed by Arnold Snyder and described in his book, Black belt in Blackjack in 1983. It is a “suit aware” system, which means that a 7 card is counted differently depending on the color of the card. Here are the card count values:
- Ace counts as -1
- 2 through 6 are counted as 1
- 7 is counted as either 0 or 1 depending on suit
- 8 and 9 count as zero
- 10 and above are counted as -1.
Its criteria scores are: E = 7; PE = 0.54; BC = 0.98; IC = 0.78
Different Card Counting Systems Online
Some people simplify the system by making the 7-card count as 0.5. This makes the system a little more difficult but does not seem to detract from its accuracy.