Originally Posted by
Tarzan
There's an important point that Arnold Snyder made in his article about utilization of the information. The additional information from side counts is useless unless it is properly utilized in your calculations of your betting and playing strategies. Something I sought out long ago, right from the beginning was to achieve maximum utilization of information. Where other counts have about 20 points of reference between -10 to +10 I have 330 unique points of reference over that same span. These specific "fingerprints" of deck composition match up against a memorized chart(s) for each hand, providing maximum utilization of the information derived from the DHME style groupings. I seriously question how many people may ever learn it though.
What Arnold wrote ->
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 side 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 said. ♠
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks