Jump to content
Keith Smith

Zero Prox count

Rate this thread for usable content  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Rate this thread for usable content

    • Excellent content and usable information
      10
    • Good Information
      5
    • Fair at best
      0
    • Sucks big time
      1


Recommended Posts

Keith Smith

Here is the Zero Proximity Blackjack Thread.

You can download the Zero Proximity Blackjack Manual with a subscription to the forum. Join us here. 


You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

In Zero Proximity, we count cards in the usual fashion. But instead of raising our bet as the count increases, we enhance our wager as the count approaches zero.

It is particularly effective in games where the count doesn't go far from the zero line positively or negatively. 

We know that Basic Strategy works best in random cards. A zero count or a count that hovers close to zero is a signature of random cards. We play very close to Basic Strategy and raise our bet when we anticipate the count will cross the zero line.

The traditional card counter often misses these games while waiting for the count to hit a given plateau. They are usually the best of games with a high dealer break rate. We find this particularly effective in one to six deck games.


You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

I just got back from a long trip that included Vegas.

Recognize that Zero Proximity designed as an exclusive application system for clumpers and counters alike.

It's designed for Atlantic City low count, four deck games. It is for four deck games where the count stays between +7 and -7 from shoe to shoe. This was a very typical situation at the Claridge in Atlantic City in the late early 1990s.  It will always be a viable strategy for two, four and in some cases six deck games anywhere you can find them.  

There wasn't enough count due to cut card in those games for counters or clumpers ( due to not enough decks)  to get any advantage. But, Zero Proximity was so successful at the Claridge that they finally closed the 4 deck game down altogether, but not before a bunch of us took a lot of money from them. 

Some of the players who partook in that adventure looked for other games and found success with two decks as it passes through the random stage shortly after new cards enter the game, about a two-hour window.

We also had good luck with six deck games. It works quite well in any little spread count game. Tight count close to zero is the key to success with Zero Proximity. We particularly like games or sections of games where the count continually passes back and forth thru zero.

We placed our high bet when it appeared that the count was going to pass through 0. For instance, it the count went from -5 to -2 in the last round, we would increase our bet. Whether the count passed through zero at that point was of little consequence. At the point we placed our high bet, the count of the remaining cards was, at most, 2 or 3 off 0. As you know, basic strategy is at its optimum break ration when the count of the round is approaching 0 from below or above. We have already mentioned correctly, the consequences when the count of the round is either significantly plus or minus.

When you find those conditions, try it. Neither traditional counting nor clumping will be effective in those conditions anyway. As in counting, the closer you are to card depleation the better your odds. Bet accordingly.


You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

We noted the count range at a given table to predict the change of direction points. We were also better off when the count was going down than when it was going up. We avoided high count tables due to the push 20's problem.

I found that watching clumps or count patterns was a more discernable way of doing this than monitoring the count. I found that simply watching for plateaus or slightly down counts was easier and more accurate than counting. In other words, watch for the actual fact rather than symptoms of it.

I found that for most people, not all, counting was a distraction to what you were actually looking for in most cases.

It seems to me that your thinking is headed in the same direction. Perhaps you have found that simply betting up as the count goes up simply doesn't cut it. In fact, you are in your weakest position exactly when the count is going up. We eliminated much of the up count wasted bets by simply counting up count rounds in a row and down count rounds in a row to predict where plateaus and or count reversals would most likely occur. We bet high less often but more accurately. For instance, if a given shoe had not produced more than two low tens ratio rounds in a row, we would bet high after watching two low rounds go by.

Counting book authors seem to me to fail to recognize that it is count direction and change of direction that is important, not numerical value. Numerical value is of little consequence unless you have already noted the count range you are dealing with at your specific table. Counting book authors fail to even mention this as far as I have seen. This failure accounts for many wasted high bets that should have been low bets or no bets. Likewise, this failure accounts for many wasted low bets that should have been high.

How are we finding conditions these days? In Tunica, conditions have greatly improved for Zero Proximity players. The advent of the Poker craze has emptied BJ tables. We see a selection of two and three player games even on weekends. We are seeing fewer dealer biased tables and dealer first card tens. It's like 1980's conditions again, maybe better.


You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

Tight Intertwines cause, in general, tight count ranges. These ARE, in every way, the best games in BJ. The tighter the count range, the better Basic Strategy works. The Zero Proximity player knows that this is his best opportunity and that third base is the most advantageous position to play these games.

This is where the dealer's cards are MOST like the players cards because the dealer receives each of her cards immediately after the third base players cards. When she gets good cards so does the third base player generally. Same for bad cards. Add a little decision skill and the third base player will seldom lose three hands in a row. Perfect oppotunity for a 3 bet negative progression. If all goes well, we strongly recommend working up to a 1,4,6 negative progression. From there, we have the ideal cash management procedure designed for that specific situation.

I have sat in such games for hours on end. I've even taken meal breaks and come back to the same seat taking up right where I left off. This is BJ at its very best.

Unfortunately, the card counting purest never gets this opportunity. The count is too shallow for him. He thinks he has no advantage and moves on. Counters, in general, believe that negative progression. are a big mistake. This is because they shun the very best games in the casino where negative progressions are by far, the most lucrative way to play.


You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

Not to change the subject but Carlos was asking about the possibility of using Zero Proximity against 8 deck somewhere back there.

First, I would like to correct a misnomer: "Zero Proximity." I created this term so I guess it's up to me to fix it. I have come to realize that when we were killing that 4 deck game at the Claridge, it was not the proximity to zero that gave us the advantage, the relative zero count position is purely a function of the cut card. Our advantage was derived because the method left us betting high in a down count.

Picture it. The count reaches its historical upper outer perimiter. We bet high as the count reversed and headed toward zero. Even when we began increasing our bet in a negative count, we were just getting to our highest bets when the count hit the upper limit. We were betting high in a down count. In a down count the Player has the advantage. In an up count the Dealer has the advantage. Highs are Player favorable. Lows are dealer favorable. Looking at those simple facts that everyone agrees on we can greatly simplify a statement of our objective.

Every players objective. Our objective is to bet high in a down count and low in an up count. Every BJ method on Earth is an attempt to do exactly that. Think about it, clumping, traditional counting, NBJ, PBJ, NBJ First Base, WCB Zero Proximity. are all an effort to do that one thing best: bet high in a down count and low in an up count. The whole damn secret of BJ. The method that accomplishes that objective most accurately in the game you are playing right now IS the best method to play in that game. In fact, I'm going to quit right there. I believe that statement of objective is perhaps the most profound and provocative statement ever made in Blackjackology. What do you think?

Edited by Keith Smith
  • Thanks 1

You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

That is correct Carlos. The counter would be better off if he determined the count spread first and witheld his high bets accordingly. He would be better off if he utilized reads on the hole card and the hit cards. He would be better off if he insurred according to those reads. And he would be better off if he used count direction when making his play decision. He would be better off if he avoided full tables and over clumped games and always played with the least number of players possible. He would be better off if he avoided all table positions except first and third and then matched his betting strategy to his table position. He would be better off if he practiced strict table selection and stategized according to the game he selected.

The problem is that no counting books teach any of this. They teach that all BJ games are the same, that all table positions are the same, never insure, that the cards are random. Then they go ahead and teach you how to bet on clumping while telling you clumping doesn't exist - pure hypocracy.

I think that BJ in general and system selection in particular can best be explained from the standpoint of 8 deck because in 8 deck, everything that happens in BJ happens more. Everything is exaggerated. I'm totally confident that any discussion of BJ should begin with our objective: to bet high in a down count and low in an upcount. Everything should be viewed from that perspective. It's the only perspective that is meaningful.

Let me start with a bold statement: By the book card counting does not work and cannot work in 8 deck BJ. I'm defining winning here as coming out substantially ahead at the end of the year after all expenses. I don't care what any counter says. I'm talking from hands on experience and lots of it. Any counter who is winning in 8 deck has advanced his game far higher than any counting books teach. They are playing more like clumpers. The problem is that counters DO win in 8 deck when the conditions are right. They judge everything from those experiences. The counter can and often does win when the count range is tight and the count remains single digit or close to it. But sooner or later he faces the extremely common situation where he begins advancing his bet at say +8 and the count goes to +32. If the casino didn't get his entire bankroll that time, just wait, they are about to. I'm talking from this standpoint. I was one of the best and fastest counters out there. I could count down a deck in 13 secods flat and tell you if the card you removed was high, low, or neutral. And I knew a whole lot more about the meaning of the count than most counters. It doesn't work!

When you look at it from the perspective of our stated objective, it's pretty easy to see why by the book counting does not work in 8 deck. It's also easy to see why clumping does. We are trying to match our high bets to down counts so that we win most of our high bets. The counter betting higher as the count rises often ends up making most of his high bets in an up count. Likewise, half of all down counts occur below the zero line. The counter usually ignores this half of the down counts altogether, missing half of his share of advantage bets.

The clumper, on the other hand, ignores the numerical count. He bets high when the tens appear regardless whether they appear when the count is above 0 or below 0. He matches his high bets with down counts far more successfully and it usually the only winner at the table in high count games.

That's enough for now. Next, we will study what happens in 6 deck and less.

Edited by Keith Smith

You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

O.K., here's what is going on? You need to fully understand this to ever play successfully:

Let's start with boxed card order clumping. In A.C. as at most casinos, the casino changes cards at the shoe game tables once per day. When I played there full time. I new what time every pit at every casino changed cards and I was ALWAYS there to watch the card prep at the table I intended to play. Each pit boss has a choice: he can start the day with clumped cards (box card order clumping) or he can start with random cards. It's easy to spot the difference right at the start of the card prep. If he has elected to start with clumped cards, possibly by seeing who is standing around, the initial deck to deck shuffles will be made with the high cards on top just as they came out of the box. The wash will be minimal and done with the palms, flat handed.

If he elects to start with random cards, one of the two decks will be cut in half. Now lows will be shuffled with highs and vice versa. Most casinos go a step further. They will completely reverse the order of one of the two decks to be shuffled by peeling off the cards one at a time making a new deck on the table exactly the reverse of the deck it is to be shuffled with. Now the wash is done thoroughly with the finger tips and the cards are completely mixed and end up super random.

I watched this every morning. This told me whether to play first base or third base. This leg up gave me a flying start every single day I played. It never failed me. It only got me in trouble once. I noted that at the Sands I was winning nearly every hand in the first shoe of new cards. I had learned to start with quarters and retreat to dimes on the second shoe. Recognize that I was often the only player there and at that time of day and there was never more than a few of us. They would always play at whichever table I opened. At the end of the first shoe, I would always go and open another table. Usually one or two of the players would follow me. I always opened with quarters. Well, one morning, after thinking about it all night I decided to stay at quarters and simply keep opening tables. Well, a little over an hour later I was opening my eighth table after killing seven in a row when the pit boss came over and asked me if I was staying at the casino. When I told him no, he said, "good this saves me from having to throw your belongings in the street". "Don't ever do that again". And, I never did. Damn people just can't take a joke. Back on point now.

The tables that started random will clump up. The more players there are and the longer the cards are played the more the cards will clump. Clumping will reach saturation by early evening or so. On Saturdays and Sundays and especially on holiday weekends, they will clump up a lot faster, usually by noon. Right Harvey? I soon learned to avoid weekend and night play altogether.

The tables that started clumped (first base) would initially head toward random but then reverse and gain clumping just like the random tables. Here's a better picture of it. Random tables would start out at count ranges in the +5 to 7 -5 to 7 range. The count range (or spread) would gradually increase with play directly proportional to the number of players. At the point of saturation counts were hitting in the low + 20's and we would occasionally break + 30. Spreads would hover around 35 - 40. The count could easily change 15 points in one round without raising a single eyebrow but mine. Dealers and players alike accepted this as "normal". Incredibly, you might see 20 tens come out in a row without a single murmur at the table.

Now, what causes this? It is all caused by picking up the break cards first and then insufficient shuffling. Picking up the break cards first separates the highs from the lows just as sure as the Bahamas Playboy casino that used to employ two discard shoes and put the highs in one and the lows in the other. Picture it. Eight players including the dealer. Half get pat hands half get hit hands the dealer has a ten up as usual. The hitters hit into a mostly low card clump and make multiple hits and finally break on a 6 or more. (Can't break on anything lower). The dealer picks up all the break hands first which are all low or mostly low cards. Then she picks up the pat hands, all tens or mostly tens but all high cards. She just successfully separated the highs from the lows in 25 or so cards. 25 cards that were purely random a moment ago. Keep doing that for 15 or 20 rounds, add an insufficient shuffle by hand or machine and presto, you have cards that are clumped way outside of the random envelope and Basic Strategy goes right down the tubes. Works every time. That's the game I played and beat full time for three years. Hey, the clumping part was easy. It was the incredible dealer biases and ten ups that were difficult. Now, let’s hear your arguments.

Edited by Keith Smith

You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

It seems that 4000 miles doesn't change the situation much at all. The cards don't seem to know what State they are in and don't seem to care. What happens in 8 deck is a magnification of what happens in 6, 4, 2, and even single deck. We can just see it better in 8 deck because everything is so much more obvious. I agree with everything you said Russ and I would like to add a little something to your last para. You mentioned standing on stiffs against a ten to break dealer biases. Correct, but we can break it down further. If the tens ratio in that round is high, perhaps your stiff is composed of a ten and a six, STAND, as you indicated. However, if the tens ratio in the round is low and it appears that the dealer pulled a lone ten up, as she so often does, HIT. The more lows we pull out of the game, the better.

Carlos asked what causes dealer biases? My answer was Basic Strategy causes dealer biases. It only appears that the casino must be cheating because these biases become so strong, so evident and so seemingly impossible. Today, I think that dealer biases outweigh clumping in the public enemy number one contest. I mentioned that B.S. causes both the dealer ten ups problem as well as the cycle bias problem because B.S. is unbalanced hitting more in high tens ratio than it does in low tens ratio. Or, put more succinctly, BS hits more in down counts than it does in up counts. This robs the game of player favorable tens while leaving an excess of dealer favorable lows in the game. Try this experiment. Take all the highs and neutrals out of a shoe. Play straight basic strategy with the lows, aces up through sixes. Any number of players will do. This clearly demonstrates what happens in the up count half of real games. The dealer makes her 4 to 8 card 20's and 21's every time while the players sit there and watch her in utter amazement just like real life. The players may well lose every single hand and usually do, just like up count sections of real games. Basic Strategy gives up in up counts. Up counts account for half the hands in BJ. This simply won't do.

Dealers win in up counts because they have no choice but to win, They win in up counts because they play dealer strategy in up counts. So, what must we do? Yes, we must play dealer strategy in up counts. That's what the dealer is beating you with. The cards don't know who is dealing. Now, you will get the same biases that the dealer was getting. But, you say, I'll break more! Yep, you certainly will BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. You were going to lose the hand anyway. Remember how the dealer made her hands, hand after hand, so miraculously? So will you! The cards don't know who is dealing! NOW, you're not giving up in half the hands. You are fighting for your fair share. And the dealer will soon realize that now, she's in a real Blackjack game! Things just aren't going the way they usually do. And believe you me, the pit boss will soon be all over that game.

This is one of the reasons that I keep saying DON"T play full tables. Your play alone won't sway a 7 player game much. BUT from 4 players on down, it definitely will. Hit in up counts, stand in down counts. Nevermind the dealer's up card. It's pretty much meaningless. Blasphemy? You bet! And, I tell my players always note what up card the dealer is breaking on. Sure, sometimes it's the 5's and 6's just like it's supposed to be. But very often, she is almost never breaking on low cards but is breaking on ten ups. Do you think that might be an important thing to know? Think you coud figure out how to use that information?

We fully recognized many years ago that when the player number changes by two either up or down, the dealer loses her bias, at least for a while. We used to walk in with five guys and take an empty table. We would play until the bias appeared. Didn't take long. Then, just as the dealer was about to deal a new shoe, two of the middle players would ask for place markers and leave. The remaining three would usually kill that game. The bias does't go away, it just changes places. Then the two players come back for the next shoe and, yep, that changes the player number by two again. You can play all day free of dealer biases. We had ways of dealing with other players who tried to sit down. "Hey man, the last guy who sat there lost 42 hands straight in a row. Never saw anythi... hey man, where you going?"


You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

Your questions were:

Q. “I would be interested in learning more of the clump card blackjack team play”

Q. “Also do you have any documnetation of the original text of the Zero Prox Blackjack Methodolgy that you mention here?”

Yes we are working n a manual right now.

As I see it, the advantage of Zero Proximity team play is that any group of four or five players can get together, learn this method, and expect to do well at any table, any casino. It is what has been referred to as a table take over method. There is no need for the cards to be clumped as your question implies. It is neither a clumping nor a counting method. It might be better referred to as a bias method. It is designed to create a strong bias favorable to the first base player but often creates a bias for any, even all the players. As well, it creates a strong negative bias against the dealer. The key is that it tends to work in any game and does not require a special type of game.

On the other hand, the Uston team play effort required a much larger group and functioned in an entirely different way. Here, "finders" would spread out in a casino looking for favorable counts whereupon the big player would come in and play this supposedly favorable table for big bucks. It is purported that this method worked in Vegas at least for a while. I know of many attempts, but no successful attempts to duplicate this method in A.C. The logistics of organizing such a huge team, dividing gains fairly, player availability, finding actual advantage tables, missteps, etc. make the problems associated with this method close to insurmountable vs very tight advantage, if any.

Simply stated we are comparing creating your own advantage games vs. finding advantage games that the casino has created. You be the judge.

As to your second question:

Q. “Also do you have any documentation of the original text of the Zero Proximity Blackjack Methodolgy that you mention here?”

Zero Proximity methodology is available in the NBJ Newsletters. However, as I recently mentioned here, Zero proximity is really a misnomer. Our advantage in those games had little or nothing to do with the proximity of the count to 0 and everything to do with the fact that the method "accidently" caused us to bet higher in down counts and lower in up counts. We have the advantage in down counts. The dealer has the advantage in up counts.

Here is an easier way to understand the insignificanse of a 0 count. Lets take a 6 deck shoe where the count hits a low of -7 and a high of +7. We say the count range is 14. THAT is what is important, among other things, not the count's proximity to zero. Here's why: recognize that we can take the same exact shoe and put the player cut card in an entirely different place and the same shoe now has a count ranging from a high point of 0 to a low point of -14. Yet, it is the same shoe with exactly the same advantage or disadvantage. Incidently, this shoe will be played exactly the same way in both cases by the NBJ ( E. Clifton Davis 1992)player, achieving the same results. However, the counter will play the shoe entirely differently in spite of the fact that the advantage is exactly the same in both shoes. There were just as many down counts (advantage plays) in the first shoe as there were in the second shoe. So, you see that 0 count is really meaningless. Down count sections vs. up count sections is EVERYTHING. So the real question is: what method of play identifies up comming down count sections best? Again, you be the judge.

Let's go back to where I said : "among other things". What are these "other things" that are crucially important in the game of BJ? In other words, what else other than count range is important to our achieving our objective of correctly identifying the location of down counts?

Game type is absolutely crucial. Let's go back to our two shoes to take a look at this. All we know about these two shoes thus far is that the count range is 14. Let's ignore the cut off cards for the purpose of explanation. We can't do anything about them anyway. In the first shoe, the count might have gone from 0 steadily up to +7, then steadily down to -7, then back to 0. This would be a good counting shoe. The same thing in the second shoe would be a count that went from 0, steadily down to -14, then steadily back to 0. In either case, NBJ players would call this a type 6 shoe. We would either play first base or avoid this table altogether. The by the book counter would never get to a high bet in this second shoe. But the NBJ player would achieve the objective, identifying down counts, vitually flawlessly.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have type 1 shoes. Type 1 shoes are shoes where the count continuously goes up and down. We tend to call these random shoes or basic strategy shoes. The count may never get high enough for the counter to react but the NBJ player will select third base and usually kill this shoe. NBJ in a type 1 game played from third base with a 1,4,6 neg. progression is BJ at it's finest. Such games with 4 players or less can last a long time. Again, my record is 17 hours in one game without a losing shoe.

Then we have all the game types in between. Here the player notes the number of up count and down count rouinds in a row and can identify the upcomming down counts with impressive accuracy.

Then we have the parlor trick plays for the higher game types: 1st base, hole card reads, hit card reads, insurance bet reads. etc. all of which sway advantage in favor of the player.

Edited by Keith Smith

You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

Zero Proximity was a special application system for a special 4 deck game at the Claridge A.C. I happened to be there when the Claridge first started up this particular 4 deck variation. The Claridge had recently introduced the first 4 deck game in AC in their upstairs high stakes arena. The introduction game (4 tables worth) was the most clumped game I had ever played and I learned to beat it. It was so clumped that counts were going into the 40's in a 4 deck game!. Twenty tens in a row were common. Full table 20 pushes were common.

I did extremely well in this game and was the only player to do so. I went from green to black and played this game 3 sessions a day seldom losing a shoe and never losing a session. The dealer virtually never broke. But the hole card read was extremely dependable in this game so I made a lot of money on insurance bets. I also had learned to play dealer strategy in the long low card clumps.

Clumps were very clean making the game totally predictable. Basic Strategy couldn't win a shoe. But this left plenty of open seats even on weekends. I stayed right there in a top floor suite and played this game 3 or 4 weeks straight, seven days a week before finally taking a short home break. When I returned (very quickly) they had a whole new 4 deck game they were dealing at most of the tables in the arena, some $25, the rest $100. This game was a complete reverse. No clumping. Counts never went beyond 7 either way and the count range stayed between 7 or 8 religiously. I quickly noticed that I won mostly when the count was right around 0 instead of when the count was high (for that game). So I began playing accordingly, virtually backwards from normal counting. Within a day I was winning every shoe at any 4 deck table and again I was the only player winning. I was never even getting behind. It was virtually foolproof. This went on for 8 days without a hint of deterioration. . Finally, I came down one morning to find that the Claridge had abandoned 4 deck Blackjack altogether. So I went home having accomplished the longest winning streak of my life.

But, I now realize that the whole thing was a fluke. I was betting a 1-4-6 progression but I delayed the progression when the count went negative and continued only when the count had peaked, reversed and headed back toward 0. In a tight count range this happens a lot. The other players were betting high as the count ascended from 0. No good. But I now realize that I was winning because I was consistently hitting down counts with my highest bets. The proximity to 0 really had nothing to do with it. Even though some of the players did well in two deck and even tight count 6 deck games, again it had nothing to do with the proximity to 0. It had everything to do with betting high in down counts. We were doing this by accident.

For that reason, I would like to adjust the whole idea of 0 prox. I have come to realize that the very best strategy in ALL BJ games is to bet high in down counts regardless of which side of 0 the count happens to be on. The more you ponder this, the more you realize the purity of it. The reverse is also true. Bet low in up counts. Here, you might ask, why bet in up counts at all?

First, most high stakes games today have the no mid-shoe entry rule. So we have to bet in up counts to stay in the game. But that's not why we MUST do it. We must play up counts so we can hit and take lows out of the game. This thwarts the dealer biases that Basic Strategy causes before they can occur. But, you ask, won't you break more? Look at this FACT. Dealers, by design, break more than players when there is no bias but who wins overall most of the time? The dealers as a whole or the players as a whole? And, look at this FACT. How often do dealers break in and up count?

Yep! And the cards don't know who is dealing.

So, in my not so humble opinion, the whole secret of BJ is to match our high bets to down counts, our low bets to up counts, and hit until you make or break in up counts. Hey, that's how the dealer is winning, why not us?

What do we call it? Who cares. The real question is what is the best way to predict the count direction in the next round? That is what we all need to be discussing, clumpers and counters alike.

Edited by Keith Smith

You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis

Russ' team: Right, that is how a counter would do it. BTW, what's happened to Seeker. I'm hoping he weighs in on this.

Back when I was preparing to write NBJ, my research led me to plotting the count of hundreds of shoes on graph paper. That was how I deciphered game types. I simply drew a horizontal axis (0 count) line and plotted the count about that axis. Game type 1 was our best situation. This was when the count did not stray far in either direction and crossed the 0 axis many times. What I call a tight count. We would play a 3 bet negative prog here since the dealer's hand was very similar to ours usually making it rare to lose 3 bets in a row. Also, because in 3 rounds you were bound to hit a down count. Anyone who has done this in an 8 deck game has had the experience of playing BJ at its finest. At the high stakes tables these games could last for hours and often did because there weren't enough players to clump it up into a higher game type. This is how I quickly learned to avoid low stakes tables and weekend play.

At the other end of the spectrum was game type 6 where the count ranged far and wide and seldom if ever crossed 0. These games we avoided unless nothing else was available. If we played at all, we played first base and bet high only when the prior round ended with high cards. For first base play, we preferred type 4 or 5. Not as many 20 pushes.

But back on point, it was bound to strike you in the casino that game type changed very slowly if at all from shoe to shoe. And the fewer the players and the more decks played the slower the game type changed. This is actually what your team noticed.

If you haven't already recognized that high cards and low cards must be clumped equally, pure physics, you will soon realize it when you go through this graphing exercise.

By clumped equally, I mean that you would have just as many up lines on your graph as down lines. But the tightness could vary. Back then, when highs following highs was the norm we would see sharp "spikes" below the axis and rounded bubbles above the axis. The down lines were at a sharper incline than the up lines. This gave you MORE up count rounds than down count rounds. Another way to say it is down counts took up less horizontal axis space than up counts. Or, highs were clumped tighter than lows.

What you are noting today, Russ, and also typefied by Boris, is somewhat the reverse. While highs and lows are still equally clumped, your up lines are at a steeper angle than your down lines or, lows are clumped "cleaner" than highs, albeit equally. Is any of this clear to you guys? I remember that when I was teaching Engineering classes at RPI sometimes I would look down and see a bunch of blank stupified stares. This was my signal to slow down and back up. Maybe I'm at that point now. Let's see. I'd like to hear your comments.

I'm not sure at all that counting is the best way to predict down counts. In NBJ, I mention that counting the number of up count and down rounds in a row is a good way to anticipate count reversals. This can give you a significant "jump" on the game. Maybe I should have emphasized that a whole lot more. This is how I taught Carlos to play. Carlos?

Ron, that reminds me, Carlos says that Boris, playing 8 deck AC shuffles to saturation is seeing an avg count spread of about 40. Does that sound about right? That is a much sounder way to confirm Boris than tens following tens.

If the casinos have gone from an abundance of highs following highs to an abudance of lows following lows my question is HOWD DA DO DAT? But then, I've found myself asking that question for 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis

Carlos said: "How about comming up with the same 6 game types using the up and down count or the count range? ...... But, I think the count range in the 6 different game types categories would be most accurate. Or even better, that combined with the number of low TR rounds in a row."

Let's keep the objective foremost in mind: To predict whether the next round is an up count or down count round. Why? 1.) So we can bet high in down count rounds and low in upcount rounds. 2.) So we can favor hitting in up counts and standing in down counts. Both are equally important. The second is equally important because to win in BJ you MUST wrench control of the game from the dealer. To accomplish this you must hit in up counts. This is one of the major problems with card counting authors and players. They simply don't grasp the fact that their play is part of the problem not part of the solution. They help create and guarantee dealer biases. Their few play variations from BS according to the count don't amount to a hill of beans. They have never had the experience of controlling the game.

And Carlos, stop using that word accuracy. That is a card counting author's term. Winning BJ is NOT about accuracy. Winning BJ is about the basic way you play and its effect on the overall game.

I was eavesdropping on one of the leading counting channels listening to this new counter lament to his garu that he was following instructions to the letter but had yet to come up with a winning day. He got the old, warn out standard deviation reply. Too new to realize that he was on the same side of the standard deviation all counters are on, he persisted. The guru began conducting a play by play going through the whole list of 500 BS plays. The player was doing everything correct until the guru got to a pair of 4's. Upon which the guru exclaimed: "No wonder you are losing! You are playing your fours wrong: You can't win without complete accuracy!" And, of course the player bought it, for the time being. See the scam?

You could easily go the whole day without ever getting a pair of 4's. And once you do, it does't matter a hoot how you play them. You've got a terrible hand. If you split, you have two terrible hands and you've doubled your trouble. If you hit sucessfully and get your 18, the dealer averages 19.2. Hell, if you think a ten is comming you'd be better off to stand and hope the ten breaks the dealer! No winning player or losing player ever got that way because of how he plays a pair of 4's! This "accuracy" notion is nothing more than a cop out to protect counting authors. True count, play variations, it's all a bunch of mutually perpetuated bullshit.

Do I sound mad? You bet I am! Just as mad as I was when I wrote NBJ. I bet those of you who read NBJ thought, Geez, this guy is really pissed off. You bet I was! Let me tell you my story in a nut shell. Let me let you in on a little secret you have probably already guessed.

Equipped only with basic strategy, I started playing the AC and Bahamas 8 deck games in the early eighties. I realized on day 1 that the cards were clumped. You would have to be blind not to. By day 2, I was already playing according to what I thought was coming and was already doing a whole lot better than the other players. By day 5 I found that I could predict the dealer's hole card. I was getting a 53% hands won rate playing that way vs basic strategy's 43%. I soon learned how to win most of my insurance bets. How to go by the dealer's hole card instead of her up card. That doubling on 8 or more vs a dealer 7 with tens running was THE most successful double. That splits were usually stupid. I began winning every time I went and started writing for Eddie Olsen's "BJ Confidential" because he was likeminded about clumping. I was making 50 grand a year as a Plant Mgr for a major corporation. That's about $150,000 in current dollars. But I figured I could do better playing BJ full time. Hell, I was already doing better playing part time.

Playing full time I cleared $64,000 a year after ALL expenses. $64,000 I could hold in my hand at years end. Don't sound like much, multiply by 3. AND, I was strictly playing quarters and only playing 3 days a week most of the time. I had quickly learned to play ONLY on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. My daily records proved conclusively that those were by far the best days to play, to avoid 7, 6, and 5 player games, to avoid over clumping altogether. To ONLY play 3rd base.

That is until I learned the first base strategy watching a cheating player sitting next to me. She was betting $100 a hand and would keep her hand on her bet. If the first card out was a 10 she left her bet up. Anything else she pulled her bet down. She was winning a lot more than I was. In bed that night I figured out how you could do this without cheating. Hence the first base strategy which I quickly copyrighted.

But I kept hearing and reading about card counting. Durring my third full time year I studied card counting reading everything out there. These authors became my heros. I practiced hours a day until I could count down a deck in 13 seconds and tell you if the missing card was high low or neutral. I never met or heard about any other counter who could do that. But I wanted to beat the Bahama speed dealers.

The fourth year I switched to card counting fully prepared. I played perfectly for one year. I bought all this accuracy bullshit. I had my FIRST losing day ever. My bubble was busted. I was near suicidal that night in my room at the Jefferson House, having skipped the bar for the first time ever. Then I had my first losing week. I tried 6 deck, 4 deck, read every book again. I tried true count. (Dividing the running count by the decks played. Didn't do a damn thing). I tried back counting and found that profits were so slow and time consumming I couldn't even make expenses. I read every book in my library a third time and bought every new book out there. At the end of the year instead of winning my $64,000, I lost $42,000. And that's when I got really pissed. I realized all my heros were nothing but scam artists. Hell, none of them even played BJ. Those guys wouldn't know a winning player if they fell over him. I invited some of them to play with me and found they couldn't play for shit. Hell, the bigger their reputation, the worse they played.

My salvation was my wife. I was in the deepest of depressions when she said to me. Hey, what the hell are you doing! You know how to win! Forget those assholes! Go right back to AC and play your own way. I did, and I won! I soon was right back to winning every day. Kathy, who I ALWAYS gave half my winnings to, said, "See I told you! Now, write your own book!" And I did! But Geez was I ever pissed off when I wrote it.

So you see Carlos, to know the count spread you have to count. When you count your mind isn't available to see all the important things you need to track to play winning BJ. You can't win control of the game as you must. BJ is a thinking man's game. No counter will ever know what it's like to really win, to sit down with 12 quarters with every anticipation of winning $1000 and usually doing it. They are just like I was: misguided, defrauded and brainwashed with dollar signs for eyeballs, dollar signs that will never be realized.

Counting up count and down count repetition? Yep, I'll buy that. Counting cards. No way. The count is nothing more than a reflection of where a player happened to put the cut card. Making anything more of it is wishful thinking and a world reserved for the scammers and the scammed. Been there, done that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis

Well, I've never said anything about patterns in BJ. I'm speaking here of the advantage that Clumpers in general, and NBJ players in particular, have over counters. Perhaps you are referring to clumps. In BJ, there are five kinds of card clumps that are caused by the pick up of the cards. They are caused by the fact that dealers pick up the break cards first which are mostly low and then the non-break cards which are mostly high. This pick-up largely "sorts" the cards in the discard shoe. Not perfectly, mind you, but enough to give the casino a huge advantage. The shuffle, whether by hand or by machine, is purposely insufficient to completely mix the clumps out of existance. Instead, they are designed to preserve clumps, thus maintaining a huge casino advantage.

There are 5 kinds of clumps of varying lengths that live right through the shuffle:

Pure high card clumps (9 thru Ace)

Mostly high card clumps

Random card clumps

Mostly low card clumps

Pure low card clumps (Ace up thru 6)

Clumping increases as the number of players increase and as the time the cards are in play increases. The more the cards are clumped, the greater the casino advantage. Anyone can prove this to themselves by simple observation. Strangely, card counters have a propensity for refusing to do this. I guess ignorance is bliss. Fortunately, there is a way to prove this beyond all doubt mathematically. If the cards were purely random, as most counters claim, the mathematical casino advantage would be 0.5 %, just as the counters claim. Anyone preferring winning over arguing can simply look up the casino BJ table take rates. They are, by law, public information. You will see table take rates as high as 55%. You can't take 55% of the player's buy in money with a 0.5 % advantage. The player would have to be in the game for days on end to lose his buy in to a 0.5 % casino advantage. But how long does it take for players to lose their first buy in? Maybe a half hour after they walk in? If you have no head for math, there is another way. If casinos truly have a 0.5 % advatage, how many winning players should you see as you walk thru the casino 's BJ pits. Nearly half, right? How many DO you see? Look Taj Mahals don't get built from the procedes of a half a percent advantage. Counters live in a world of wishful thinking. The FIRST thing you need to know to win at BJ is the truth about exactly what you are up against. Look, it's gambling! Gambling is about odds. If you don't know the odds, you have no chance at all. Forget those $10 books! Those guys don't play, they write. You will never see a sinlge one of them in a casino actually playing BJ for high stakes. They know better. If they knew how to win, they wouldn't be writing $10 books. They would be playing.

Look, I played the toughest BJ tables in the world, Atlantic City, for three years full time. I never had so much as a losing day. I don't know of a single player, living or dead, that ever came close to that record. I can teach you how to win. That's what I do at 66 years old. You won't learn how to win in this forum. This forum is for NBJ players who already know how to win. A place where we can compare notes and discuss BJ. It is not a teaching forum. But somewhere in this forum we offer to teach you at highly discounted prices. Look it up.

So how does clumping effect the odds? All of Basic Strategy, all of card counting is based on a dealer break rate of 28%. That means the dealer breaks MORE often than 1 hand out of 4. Does she? Hell no! Anybody that ever played at all knows that the dealer does not break nearly that often. That's pure wishful thinking. This dictates that basic strategy is totally based on a lie. Likewise, in every BJ book every play is based on the dealer up card. THINK about that! What good is the dealer up card when she will have a low down card exactly as often as she has a high down card? Why would you ***UME that the dealer has a 10 down? Why in the world would you ever ***ume anything that is going to be wrong 9 times out of 13??? How smart is that? Beginning to see why the book writers don't play?

The cards are clumped because the casino wants them clumped. They want them clumped because it is clumping and clumping alone that creates the casino's table take rate. Clumping destroys the dealer break rate. Try counting dealer breaks in a 7 player, 8 deck game, on a Saturday night. You'll be lucky if she is breaking 1 hand out of 9. Basic strategy is completely destroyed. So is card counting. How?

It's really very simple. So simple, that every book writer that isn't totally stupid, knows how this is done. They simply sell their books anyway because they have no idea how to fix the problem. But I know exactly how to not only fix it but exploit the situation. See, the dealer WILL break 28% in random card clumps but only in random card clumps. That is exactly why casinos don't want random cards. Why they do everything in their considerable power to keep random cards to an absolute minimum. Now, picture a high card clump. Yep, the dealer can't break. It is impossible. She will get a pat hand every time. She never draws, so how can she break? There goes your 28% break rate already. But watch, it gets a whole lot worse. Picture a low card clump running through the dealers hand. Can't break can she. You can only break on cards 6 through 10. There are none of those in a low card clump except the 6. Yes, she could be unlucky to arrive at 16 and only 16 and draw a 6. But how many unlucky dealers do you know? Maybe you are beginning to see that luck has nothing to do with it. Casino card order orchestration has everything to do with it. Did you really think you were that unlucky? Play perfect basic and only win 35% of the hands? You aren't unlucky and the dealer isn't lucky. Watch my lips: It's fixed. And God bless them because that is exactly how NBJ beats them, actually punishes them, as they should be. We use there own orchestration against them. Look, what is the opposite of random? Right, "ordered". And what is a good word for ordered? Right, predictable. And that is exactly how we beat them. We use their own cheating against them. Ironic, isn't it.

When I was talking about the count spread above, I said that COUNTERS would be better off to track the count spread. We don't need to count at all and we don't need to know the count spread. There are a lot of things we need to notice in the game. When you count, you can't track the things that are far more important to winning. Like, does she have a 10 in the hole or not? Think that might be helpful? I was once ejected from the Claridge for winning every single insurance bet over 4 hours of play. Think that little parlor trick could help your finances? Hey, if I teach you how to play NBJ, you will win far more than my expense with correct insurance bets alone.

Look it up! If you can't find it, email Keith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis

Ellis here: Before we get into the effects of fewer cards, ie., 6 deck and less, lets take one last look at the counter's claim, that Bj is random cards, that the shuffle produces random cards. I think we can define the word random here as a shoe where the odds of the next card being high or low are equal. After all, if the odds were not equal, the cards could not be random because they would be predictable to some degree. They would be the very definition of non random or clumped. I am 100% sure that counters and clumpers are on the same page at this point. The argument is purely semantics.

Look counters, if the cards are random what the hell do you think you are counting? You are purely counting the disparity between highs and lows. You are counting to determine when the remaining cards favor highs. You are counting clumping. If there were no clumping, you wouldn't have anything to count. The count wouldn't go anywhere. You would never increase your bet. But, when you reach a high count, that's when basic strategy has the advantage at least up to a point. That is when you raise your bet to take advantage of both the player favorable excess tens as well as the player favorable shortage of lows.

O.K. Counters, repeat these words after me. I count to predict when the remaining cards favor me. I am playing basic strategy. I count to determine when the remaining cards favor basic strategy. That is how I play.

Sure, I realize that you change a couple plays here and there at certain high counts. Big whip! There are 500 different hands in BJ. How many do you change? 8? And that is supposed to make you a winner? How's that working for you so far? Forget what your books say is supposed to happen. Look at what IS happening. Are you happy with those results? Look, the casinos made the changes to the game to beat card counting years ago. And those changes work. You aren't driving them broke are you . Wake up! Your book authors aren't going to tell you that the casinos defeated card counting 15 years ago. They aren't going to tell you that because then they couldn't sell any more of their stupid books. Let me clue you in to something. You have no idea of what it is like to win. To really win! You have no idea of what it is like to really have an advantage. A real advantage. Not just when the count is high, but from the very moment you walk into a casino. You have no idea what it is like to walk into a casino and know that you are on YOUR turf, your hunting ground, your battle arena, and KNOW that you are going to win. Know that you know more about it than they do. That this is YOUR game, not theirs!. Now that is the difference between NBJ players and card counters. You have no chance of winning long range. We have no chance of losing.

Not convinced? So there you sit at the middle of the table, because you don't know any better, and the count is at -13. What were you doing? Just sitting there wracking your brain keeping the count totally oblivious to what just happened. Look, the count is -13! What does that mean? That 13 excess tens went right by you while you sat there doing absolutely nothing about it. You just watched your advantage area of that shoe slip right p***ed you without so much as raising an eyebrow. The NBJ player over at third base just made more money in ten minutes than you'll make all day. Where were you? Sitting there waiting for a good count? You missed that one and you are going to keep missing them all day because your method of play has your hands tied right along with your brain. Don't worry about it. It's not your fault. It's the fault of all those people that lied to you. And it's not really their fault. Most of them don't even know they are lieing, that they are victims of a huge conspiracy just as you are. Nothing you can do about it. Except maybe smarten up, take the bull by the horns and LEARN NBJ!

The truth told, let's talk about the effect of the number of decks in the game. More decks favor NBJ players. Less decks favor counters. NBJ players would just as soon they start playing ten decks or 12.

The problem counters have with 8 decks is they can reach their count trigger, increase their bet accordingly, and have lows keep falling. There's just too many cards for them. 8 decks can lead to an entrapment for counters and often does. Look at the situation where the accident of where the player inserted the cut off card cuts a large clump of highs out of play. The counter reaches his + count trigger because the played cards favor lows which gives him a good + count. He increases his bet only to see more lows fall. He increases his bet more to cover his losses as the count keeps going up. The problem is, he can easily run out of money before the shoe runs out of lows. What makes this even worse for counters is that because of their blind adherence to basic strategy, counters have little chance of winning in up counts (while the count is going up). Worse, the counter has virtually no chance of winning in solid low clumps. Why? In solid lows the counter cannot avoid a stiff hand. He can't miss ending up with 12 -16. So, he follows basic and stands stiff betting the dealer will break. But the dealer can't break in solid lows. The counter goes down without a fight. Likewise counters are at a huge disadvantage in predominently low card clumps. Counters, if they just must be counters, would do best to stick to single deck.

NBJ players, on the other hand, hit or stand according to the preponderance of highs or lows. They hit in solid lows because they know the dealer cannot break in solid lows. Neither can we, so why not hit? This way, we win half the hands in solid low clumps while the counter wins zero or very close to zero. This is the main reason why NBJ players have a significantly higher hands won ratio than counters. They fight for every hand. The counter gives up. Hey, we're gambling. Hands won ratio is everything! Look! When you stand stiff, you are betting the dealer will break. Hey, that would be OK if the dealer odds of breaking were always 28% as basic strategy claims. But even a novice must understand that the dealer break odds are far less than that when the cards are predominently low. So why would anyone favor betting the dealer will break more and more while the odds of her breaking become less and less? How could anyone be that dumb? But that is exactly what basic strategy tells you to do.

So the counter is handicapped by basic strategy which tells you to play THIS way and only this way. It says, play by wrote, don't think. Ignore the odds. It says it doesn't matter whether you win or lose as long as you play basic strategy perfectly. Watch my lips! WINNING IS EVERYTHING! Why would you ever follow the teachings of anyone who thinks otherwise. But most BJ players do exactly that. That is why they lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis

Excellent post Matt! Real World! That is what we are up against at its worst. But don't knock orchestration too much. That is what we use to WIN. We use their own orchestration against them because it leaves them wide open for exploitation. That's exactly what I teach with NBJ. How to exploit casino orchestration against them and punish them.

In ANY of life's endeavors we are far better off to deal with what IS. With the actual facts. Step 1 is to determine what the true facts are right now. We start with an accurate statement of the problem. BJ is no different.

The books say:

It doesn't matter when you go.

It doesn't matter where you play.

The time of day doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter what seat you take.

It doesn't matter how many players are in the game.

It doesn't matter what the other players do.

The cards are random.

It doesn't matter whether you win or lose just play perfect Basic Strategy and you have a 0.5% advantage.

Some books say you have to add card counting to get that advantage.

The internet card counter groups are NOW saying you also have to add luck.

Watch my lips:

There is no Santa Claus!

There are no leprechauns!

Elvis is dead!

Luck hasn't got a thing to do with it!

The cards are not random!

Everything up there matters and matters a great deal!

None of this has anything to do with opinion, nothing to do with superstition. All of this is based on one thing and one thing only. Indisputable mathematics. Real world math, bottom line math. Not surface math but deep down, factual, functional math that takes everything into consideration. That is exactly what NBJ is. That is what I teach.

Look at it this way. Just suppose that those books are 100% right for a minute. Suppose for a minute that you COULD get a 0.5 % advantage by following some dumb as a post ten dollar book. Look at exactly what that means.

Let's say you are a ten dollar player. That your bets average $20. That the game averages 50 hands an hour. All totally reasonable? OK, so how much could you win with your 0.5% advantage IF IT EXISTED? Well $20 X 50 hands equals $1000 bet every hour you play. A half a percent of $1000 is $5. Yep, you're playing to try to make $5 an hour. And that would be IF the books were right, IF you played perfect Basic Strategy, IF you counted cards perfectly, and now, IF you were lucky to boot.

Well how much are you paying the baby sitter? How much are you tipping the waitress? It would take you the first two hours just to pay for the stupid book. The whole idea is absurd. It's ridiculous. It's laughable.

Maybe now you are beginning to see why I keep saying that these card counters have NO idea of what it is like to win. to really win!

Look at Carlos' play. $5 an hour? That's B.S., pun intended. Carlos, starting with a playing stake smaller than most, was winning more than $1000 a minute average on his 3rd day of play. Now THAT is what I'm talking about! That is what I teach. That is what you can do with NBJ. HE knows what it's like to WIN! That is what I want to teach folks that want to really play this game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

The thing that makes the story hokey is that fact that they claim they lost all the money twice to some fluke. Ok .... maybe Hollywood to make a movie or an excuse not to be able to show someone the money. And the bullshit underground casino to see if he could keep the count under pressure was so out there that anyone with common sense should know that was hollywood. Who knows, but really who cares all I know is inthe movie they stole our variable change introduction to blackjack seminars. Someone involed in that movie saw our seminar the variable change example is how I started everyone of mine.

If you read Million Dollar Blackjack it is the same story line of the big player jumping in on a signal. Now Uston actually won. all in all i did enjoy the movie and loved the gambling theme. If you want to see a cool one watch Stacey Knights with Kevin Costner in one of his first movie roles. I'll say this if Uston would have know zero prox he would have closed more than 1 casino. In his newsletters he mention he couldn't understand why the casinos were allowed to deal cards that had remanants of the box order of cards. Go ahead get the old newsletters you can read it for yourself for those who still argue that clumping exisits. The greatest card counter of all time saw it for one reason only becasue he actually played the game.


You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis

Traditional card counting is only effective in the small window of games that develope a significant + count. That is why both Uston and MIT needed teams of counters looking for these games. But Basic Strategy has its lowest hit rate in games with the highest counts. They were betting the most money in the worst games. It is little wonder the whole thing fell apart. O Prox, NBJ, WCB, and Fbb has you betting the most money in the best parts of the BEST games. They teach you which games to play and which to avoid.

Traditional card counting says you can play ANY game from ANY position. The pure mathematical fact is: YOU CAN'T. Not if you expect to win overall. In its own defense, traditional card counting responds: "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose as long as you make the correct play". This may help explain why traditional card counting cannot produce a single bottom line year end winner. And why WE CAN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

12 unit buy in and max stop loss.

I bring 5 buy ins for a 3 day trip.

If you are well studied and practiced that should be sufficient.

Lifetime Bankroll and risk of ruin is loser talk.

Supplant that with good table selection. Your manual will thoroughly cover table selection.

As soon as you can, move up from $5 units to at least $25 unless all your play is on line. Your manual will also cover this thoroughly. $5 tables are the toughest in the casino because they get the most play with the most players and therefore clump up the fastest.

A student once asked me: Keith, why do you always play $100 tables when I can't afford them?

Answer: Because I can't afford $5 tables.


You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

司奇士

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis
Hello Ellis,

Can you answer the following questions related to the Zero Proximity Count blackjack method.

1) Can I play head-to-head with the dealer and can I play at a full table, also?

Hi Stan! Head to head is best. From there, the fewer players at the table the better. This is because the more players there are the faster the cards clump up and the more the cards clump the worse Basis Strategy performs. This is true of ALL BJ methods, not just 0 Prox. I never play with more than 4 players and I play head to head as much as possible.

2) What is the spread between the lowest bet and the highest bet for this method?

Once we have identified a good 0 Prox table we usually start with a 112 up as you lose prog. Our prog is NEVER more than 3 bets. We quickly increase our prog if doing well. 112; 123; 134; 146. Never higher. We match our prog to the Quality of the table. The more we win the more we increase our prog. We are trying to get to the magic 146. But this is rare. Usually 134 is as high as we go.

I usually play black and start with 1 pile of 10 units. I don't go to 146 until I have 3 piles of 10. But at 146 you are building piles very quickly. I double my base unit every 3 piles. I've been known to amass as many as 30 piles of ten (not counting my buy in pile) in one game. But ten piles is quite common. I did this twice inside of a half hour each at both of my Taj public exhibitions.

With red or green play buy in at 12 units and use piles of 12.

3) I read on the Forum that this method should be not be used for 8-deck shoes? Is that correct?

No, not really. In fact the Taj was 8 deck. If you are playing head to head, which I was, the number of decks makes little difference because head to head can not clump up the cards. But 8 decks clumps up fastest with multiple players. What I WAS saying was avoid 8 decks with more than 4 players because a good game won't last.

4) Can it be used for 6-deck shoes, 4 decks, 2 decks and single deck?

Absolutely as well as 8 deck esp with only one or two players.

5) Here are the rules that I would be playing in Puerto Rico:

The dealer deals all cards face up and he or she is the last one to the last card only after the other players at the table have busted or stood. Also, the dealer stands on all 17s. I can split any pair (Aces get only 1 card) and double down on 9, 10, and 11.

Right, we call that European rules when the dealer waits until all have finished their hands to deal her second card. One advantage of your rules is that the 3rd base player has more control over the dealers hand.

6) About how long will it take to master before I can go and play live at a casino?

This depends on your existing ability to count cards. For this reason I have decided to go back to the manual and add a great counting drill that you can time so you know when you are casino ready. But I also teach you how to play a beginner version of 0 Prox W/O counting. And I teach you how to count as well.

Thanks for the questions Stan

Edited by Ellis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jairobigplayer

is this strategy like Jerry Patterson book 2000 COUNT PROFILE SYSTEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis
is this strategy like Jerry Patterson book 2000 COUNT PROFILE SYSTEM

No, I suspect Jerry's is conventional card counting which is a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...