Zero Prox in 8 decks

[Keith Smith]

I have been practicing with an 8 deck game. I find that if you use the running count instead of the count per deck and consider a random count between +8 and -8 you can hit the dealer breaks. If you use the zero prox target bet method while in that zone , it works out pretty well. I was using 6 player games

[ECD]

Right, I don't think the number of decks is important. What IS important is the FACT that the very best games from a Basic Strategy standpoint are games where the count stays in the 0 Proximity. Because they most consistantly have equal amounts of high and low cards causing the dealer to break most often. The dealer CAN'T break on all highs or all lows so the dealer breaks the least on the highest count shoes and Basic Strategy wins least in the highest count shoes. Yet the counter bets the most in the highest count shoes, exactly where he can expect to win the least. I find that both extremely problematical yet easily correctable.

[xingbnso]

Hi,

I just purchased the prepublication manual for this system. Cant waint! Quick question though. When keeping track of count, are we keeping track of the running count or do we have to adjust and figure out the true count? I prefer the running count although it may not be as accurate.

[Keith Smith]

That's was I was practicing with the running count and not the true count or as they say count per deck. I let the count vary between the +8 and -8. But I think as they deal into the shoe the sweet spot for zero prox should diminish as decks are removed.

[ECD]

Right, running count because you are using the count to find tables with a low total running count rather than a high count as counters do. The count per deck becomes meaningless. When I played this way full time in the casino, I had my most consistent wins ever in BJ. But when I had tried normal counting I lost heavily just as Kenny Uston did who was playing AC at that same time. I think it is a vast improvement to traditional card counting.