Column Count vs Conventional

Again, a column count will reduce variance in many ways. It is more difficult (but not impossible) with a conventional count. For instance, I had a 2 hand max bet out the other day with at least 67% high cards remaining and 33% or less low cards remaining. My 1st hand was 6,5 vs 5 so I doubled and got a 7. Not too bad. 2nd hand is A2. I hit a 4 and then a 5 for 12. Still feeling good. Dealer flips and 8 and hits another 8. Bam, 3 hands lost in a two hand play. No, I'm not complaining because I lost. But my question to myself at the time was "where are the fucking 10s"?

Obviously, the deck was loaded with middle cards and they came out perfectly just enough to bite me in the ass. In a column count I would've made that read and played the hand as a minimum bet.

Now, IF God is really watching blackjack and cares about the results? Well, he doesn't hate me as much as he hates ZenKing. :yikes:

But, then again, he doesn't like me nearly as much as he favors Midwest Player. :eek:

Therefore, I have to work at this game just to get 60% wins 40% losses.

I get Freighter. He plays Wong Halves. Essentially, he's assigned a tag value to every card in the deck except the 8. Plus he either side counts the Ace or keeps a separate tally for perfect insurance. A handy little item with a large bet out. Plus, he is of sound mind, so he takes the game in stride and looks for his spots. Hence, not just relying on math. No?

In my example. Reading A-9, 5-7, 2-4 left to right. IF the count was 8-8-8, I know I have a solid deck composition AND a high TC. But if it was 8-6-10, I know I have a deck rich in high cards but also rich in 5-7s. There can only be 2 remaining of the 2-4s. That was probably the case in the losing scenario above.

Don S and CV Data were primary factors in improving the column count. Once I understood the conventional method and Don S practical solutions it was much easier to define my game. The math? Everything has a formula. Learn the formula and the math is easy. Then it simply comes down to memory of cards.

Yes, my conventional count does provide a higher percentage of plays. But why have more plays with poor deck compositions? The column count large bets are always on solid deck compositions. Why? The formula says so. Along with the review of thousands of hands for comparison.

Is there an Algebra teaches or whiz out there?

Okay, so here is what we know. Assuming the first round of the deck. There are 16 cards that improve a 16. There are 32 cards that will break it. There are 4 Aces that one would have have to start their next hand with than getting to 17.

So, according to the BS of the 4 wise men, 2/3rds or 67% of the time, the fat lady is singing before the dealer ever has to flip the hole card.

Speaking of hole cards. IF a ten is showing, there are 27 cards saying the dealers doesn't hit (in H17 game). There are 20 cards that make the dealer hit. So 57.44% of the time the dealer doesn't hit. Whereas 42.56% of the time the dealer does hit. Hence, if the Ace is in the hole, the fat lady is already singing a very sad song.

There are 4 Aces and 16 Tens in a deck. So 38.46% of the time you start your hand with a ten or Ace. The formula should reflect the value of standing over hitting with this taken into consideration for a single deck game. I think Don S came up with the idea and the 4 horseman overlooked it. No? So what is the formula?