Best Card Counting Strategy
- Blackjack Counting Strategy
- Baccarat Card Counting Strategy
- Best Card Counting Strategy
- Best Card Counting Strategy Chart
If you are a beginner in card counting Blackjack strategy, then you should consider going for the easiest and simplest way of card counting namely, Hi-Lo. The main objective behind card counting in Live Blackjack as well as online Blackjack is to make out the proportion of high and low cards compared to what is left in the shoe and which cards have been already dealt.
Best Card Counting System Deciding which system is the “best” is generally a matter of personal preference—balancing the reliability of a system against the feasibility of learning and using it. All of the systems discussed above produce reliable results.
Before going into details, let us strictly specify that there is no federal law that prevents players from using card counting techniques in Live Blackjack online. However, you can be escorted out of the casino if they find out that you are too good in the game! You can take it as a compliment that you are too good for the casino! Before that, let us look at the most popular card counting techniques that players favour from all around the world.
Basic card counting technique
The main motive is to get an idea of how many high and low-value cards are present inside the shoe. This is also known as ‘counting the table’ in Online as well as Live Blackjack.
Blackjack Strategy for Beginners. Counting cards is just one of many different strategies you can use when playing blackjack. But if you’re new to blackjack as a whole, you’ll want to learn some other strategies first before trying to count cards. Below, you’ll find a link to our blackjack strategy guide for beginners where you can get all. Blackjack card counting guide with a look at five different counting systems. Learn basic card counting skills, odds, and how to find a 'true count.' Card counting is forbidden in most casinos. Card counting allows you to basically cheat at games like Blackjack. This technique is most famously shown off in the movie, Rain Man.
Blackjack Counting Strategy
In this technique, the player has to take a stock of all the exposed cards of every hand at the table including the dealer as well as the player. Count the high-value cards or 10 point cards and the low-value cards or cards between 2 – 5 points. If the player has exposed a number of low-value cards, then his deck is filled with high-value cards indicating that he is at an advantage. If the player has more than six high-value cards, then the deck is less favourable for him.
With practice, you will be able to master the advanced basic counting skills and know when the dealer’s card will be worth 10 points. You need to stand on 16 if you card counting skill signifies more low-value cards instead of high-value cards. Your chance of drawing a 4 or 5 is significantly low if the table is filled with low-value cards.
Hi-Lo card counting technique
This counting Blackjack strategy starts as soon as the cards are reshuffled and the dealer starts taking out cards from a fresh shoe. The player has to keep a count on the high value and low-value card numbers in the shoe by assigning them a point value of +1, 0 or -1. Following this, the card counter has to add, subtract or do nothing base don the point value of the cards. Your hand value count should come out as 0. For every hand on the table, you have to do this card counting unless you come up with a running count.
This technique is useful if the game is fast paced and you have to update your running count every time new cards are introduced in the table. This technique is useful with single deck games and the difficulty level increases with multiple decks. The player has the advantage if he gets a high running count. Similarly, the house gets more edge of the number comes up low or negative in value.
Uston SS card counting technique
Instead of the 3 point values in the Hi-Lo system, this technique deals with 6. Check out the following table. This is a more accurate method for card counting and the biggest challenge is quick calculation and memorization. SS signifies Strongest. Simplest and uses the same addition, subtraction or do-nothing based on the cards dealt on the table. The same true count formula is used just like the Hi-Lo system if the table has multiple decks.
However, many professional players hate to use this technique as it is an unbalanced system and the challenge of remembering 6 point values is cumbersome and time-consuming.
Card number | The point value of the cards |
5 | 3 |
2, 4, 6 | 2 |
9 | -1 |
8 | 0 |
7 | 1 |
10, Aces, face cards | -2 |
Side counting technique
This technique is usually combined with other techniques like Hi-Lo to make it more effective. The player has to take a mental complement of Aces, face cards, or a specific card. Side counting technique is not favourable. If you are a beginner, we suggest you stick to Hi-Lo technique. If you are a seasoned player, then moving to the SS Uston technique will be much more beneficial.
KO card counting technique
The Knock-Out card counting technique has the same point value just like the Hi-Lo system. But, instead of the neutral rule of 7 cards in the Hi-Lo system, this technique assigns 7 cards as a low-value card. The KO technique indicates more low-value cards in the shoe if the running count is high positive and vice versa.
Just a tip! You won’t get much time to calculate at a casino. Train your mind to spot the cards that cancel each other!
Summary
Name: Card Counting Strategies to reduce the House EdgeAuthor: Helen Stratford
Published Date: 29/04/2019
The'Best' Card Counting System: A Comparison of the Top 100
By Arnold Snyder(From Blackjack Forum Volume I #3, September 1981)
© Blackjack Forum 1981
[Note to players from Arnold Snyder: This is a technical article on the way professional blackjack players and count system developers compare card counting systems. If you're new to card counting, and are looking for your first card-counting system, I recommend you start with our Intro to Winning Blackjack article.
There are links in that article to several card counting systems, from the easiest system I've ever seen to a full professional-level system, as well as information for new card counters on how to choose the best system for you.]
A number of blackjack players have written me asking my opinion of the 'best' card counting system. This is a loaded question.
As I mentioned in Blackjack Forum #I I have been using the Hi-Opt II count, because I like its power and simplicity for my ability and style of play. [Note from A.S.--Soon after this article was written I switched to the Zen Count for single deck play. When I began shuffle tracking, I switched to the Hi Lo Lite Count. Complete information about both counts is provided in Blackbelt in Blackjack]
If you are using a card counting system with which you are comfortable, and you feel you can play it accurately, then stick with it. There is more money to be made by finding and exploiting lucrative table conditions than by 'upgrading' your card counting strategy. Your 'act' is more important than any amount of complex mental arithmetic you do at the tables.
Card counting is automatic and boring once you know your system. This is as it should be, so that you may apply your efforts to the more important work of pretending to be a non-card-counter; engaging dealers and pit-bosses in conversation; flirting with cocktail waitresses; acting engrossed in the Keno board, etc.
Some players find card counting easy, and/or are so dedicated to practice that they can accurately apply higher level card-counting strategies. By a 'higher level count,' I mean a count that assigns card values other than +1, -1, or 0.
A 'multi-parameter count,' on the other hand, is one that keeps separate running counts for various cards. I am of the opinion that the most difficult higher level single parameter card counting system (i.e. - no 'side counts') are easier to play with accuracy, than the 'simplest' level one multi-parameter card counting systems.
Most card counters, including serious professionals, should stick with level one single-parameter card counting systems. Some players may obtain a slightly greater advantage by applying a higher level single-parameter count strategy. I've analyzed more than 100 different single-parameter systems, including both those that are currently available and some that are purely theoretical to determine the 'best', in terms of potential returns on the dollar.
The Search for the Best Card Counting System: Methodology
My method of comparing systems is to apply the 'Blackjack Formula,' inserting the various systems' playing efficiencies and betting correlations. If you have my book, The Blackjack Formula, see page 54 for such a comparison of eight popular card counting systems. In this comparison, I tested each system vs. Vegas Strip rules in a singledeck game with a 1 to 4 betting spread, and 60%, 70% and 80% of the cards dealt out.
I've similarly tested many other actual and hypothetical card counting systems in both single and multi-deck games, assuming various betting spreads. Although differences between systems are slight, this methodology allows card-counting systems to be ranked by profit potential with relative accuracy if we assume accurate strategy tables are being used.
What I've found is that the higher-level systems perform at a rate of profit of about .1% better than the level one systems. My method of computing the playing efficiencies and betting correlations of the various systems is explained in The Blackjack Formula (pages 85 through 90). My method is a simplification of Peter Griffin's method in Theory of Blackjack, and for all practical purposes, is just as accurate.
The card counting systems that I analyzed in seeking the best ranged from level one through level four (i.e., I did not attempt to analyze any count system with values greater than +4). There appears to be no practical reason for employing a count system greater than a level two. I could find no significantly better count than that which applies the following values:
Baccarat Card Counting Strategy
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | X | |
-1 | +1 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -2 |
This count, which I will dub the Zen Count, has a playing efficiency of .63 and a betting efficiency of .97. Curiously, the ace, valued at -1, is not neutralized (valued 0), but 'half' neutralized. In other words, I have 'taken the middle road. - a zen approach.
It is this trick that keeps the betting efficiency high, while maintaining a very respectable playing efficiency. The following table shows how various counts rank, according to the Blackjack Formula, assuming a 1-to-4 spread, single-deck game, Vegas Strip rules, dealt out 70% between shuffles:
System | Rate of Profit |
Zen Count | 2.00 |
Uston APC | 1.98 |
Revere APC '73 | 1.97 |
Wong Halves | 1.96 |
Hi-Opt II | 1.96 |
Canfield Master | 1.96 |
Revere Point Count | 1.95 |
Uston Adv. +/- | 1.89 |
Canfield Expert | 1.88 |
Hi-Lo | 1.87 |
Hi-Opt I | 1.86 |
Revere +/- | 1.86 |
Andersen Count | 1.80 |
DHM (Simple) | 1.78 |
The top-ranked (level two) Zen Count is simpler than any of the next three counts which are level 3, level 4, and level 3, respectively. As I noted earlier, I use the Hi-Opt II count. My reason for this is that the gain from using the Zen Count is very slight, and frankly Hi-Opt II is slightly simpler. I'm a great believer in simplicity. Nor could I say for certain that the Zen Count is undeniably superior. The Blackjack Formula indicates a negligible superiority under most conditions.
Of academic interest, the best single parameter card counting systems are those numbered #91, #92, #93 and #94. These systems represent the upper limit of single parameter systems which score high in both playing efficiency and betting correlation.
All of these systems employ the same device of not-quite-neutralizing the Ace. Although I believe it would be easier to play one of these level four single-parameter systems accurately, than it would be to play any multi-parameter system, I would not advise any player to mess with one of these monsters. The potential gain from using one of these counts, compared to that of the relatively simple Zen count, is negligible.
For instance, in the Vegas Strip game used in the prior comparison, in which the Blackjack Formula predicts the Uston APC would win at a rate of 1.98% and the Zen Count would win 2.00%, any one of the level four counts would win at a rate of only 2.02%.
The Blackiack Formula, to be fair, is not actually accurate enough to make such a fine comparison. But count #92, which has a playing efficiency of .67, and a betting correlation of .95, would undeniably rank higher than Hi-Opt II, which also has a playing efficiency of .67, but a betting correlation of only .91.
The following table lists the playing efficiencies and betting correlations of 100 selected card counting systems (with sincere thanks to Brian Gothberg for writing the computer program that generated these results).
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | X | A | PE | BC | |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | .05 | .53 |
2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | .56 | .86 |
3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | .61 | .88 |
4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | .64 | .85 |
5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | .51 | .97 |
6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | .55 | .95 |
7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | .59 | .92 |
8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | .63 | .89 |
9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | .54 | .98 |
10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | .05 | .58 |
11 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | .49 | .78 |
12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | .57 | .83 |
13 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | .51 | .94 |
14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | .53 | .91 |
15 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | .57 | .89 |
16 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | .59 | .86 |
17 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | .47 | .89 |
18 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | .53 | .84 |
19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | .51 | .97 |
20 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | .54 | .96 |
21 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | .49 | .94 |
22 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | .46 | .89 |
23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -2 | .4 | .96 |
24 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -2 | .43 | .94 |
25 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -2 | .4 | .93 |
26 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -2 | .38 | .88 |
27 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2 | .45 | .98 |
28 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2 | .41 | .97 |
29 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -2 | .43 | .94 |
30 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2 | .41 | .93 |
31 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2 | .44 | .95 |
32 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | -2 | .42 | .91 |
33 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -2 | 1 | .61 | .72 |
34 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -2 | 0 | .61 | .8 |
35 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 0 | .67 | .88 |
36 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 | .67 | .91 |
37 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 | .63 | .9 |
38 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 0 | .66 | .89 |
39 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | 0 | .65 | .91 |
40 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | 0 | .67 | .93 |
41 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -2 | 0 | .62 | .92 |
42 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -1 | .63 | .97 |
43 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -1 | .58 | .95 |
44 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -1 | .61 | .94 |
45 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -1 | .62 | .98 |
46 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -1 | .57 | .97 |
47 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -1 | .62 | .95 |
48 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -2 | -2 | 0 | .63 | .93 |
49 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -2 | .56 | .99 |
50 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -2 | -2 | -1 | .59 | .97 |
51 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -2 | .55 | 1 |
52 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -2 | -2 | -1 | .61 | .96 |
53 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -2 | .57 | .99 |
54 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -3 | .48 | .98 |
55 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -3 | .49 | .97 |
56 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -3 | .49 | .98 |
57 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -3 | .46 | .97 |
58 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -3 | .48 | .97 |
59 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -3 | .49 | .97 |
60 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -3 | .48 | .96 |
61 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -3 | .45 | .94 |
62 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -2 | .57 | 1 |
63 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -2 | .53 | .98 |
64 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -2 | .55 | .97 |
65 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -3 | .5 | 1 |
66 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -3 | 0 | .66 | .92 |
67 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -3 | 0 | .66 | .92 |
68 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -3 | 0 | .63 | .91 |
69 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -3 | 0 | .63 | .9 |
70 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -3 | 0 | .68 | .93 |
71 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -3 | 0 | .67 | .94 |
72 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -3 | 0 | .66 | .94 |
73 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -2 | -3 | 0 | .67 | .93 |
74 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -3 | -1 | .65 | .95 |
75 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -3 | -1 | .64 | .96 |
76 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -3 | -1 | .63 | .96 |
77 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -3 | -2 | .61 | .97 |
78 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -3 | -2 | .62 | .99 |
79 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -3 | -3 | .56 | .99 |
80 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -3 | -3 | .57 | 1 |
81 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -3 | 0 | .66 | .93 |
82 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -2 | -3 | 0 | .65 | .94 |
83 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -2 | -3 | -1 | .64 | .97 |
84 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -2 | -3 | -2 | .61 | .99 |
85 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -3 | -3 | .58 | 1 |
86 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -3 | -4 | .53 | 1 |
87 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -4 | 0 | .68 | .93 |
88 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -4 | -1 | .66 | .95 |
89 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -4 | -1 | .66 | .95 |
90 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -4 | -1 | .64 | .96 |
91 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -4 | -1 | .66 | .96 |
92 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | -1 | -4 | -1 | .67 | .95 |
93 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | -2 | -4 | -1 | .66 | .96 |
94 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | -2 | -4 | -1 | .65 | .97 |
95 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | -2 | -4 | -2 | .63 | .98 |
96 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | -4 | -4 | .56 | .99 |
97 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -4 | -4 | .56 | .99 |
98 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | -1 | -4 | -4 | .57 | 1 |
99 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | -1 | -4 | -3 | .6 | .99 |
100 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | -1 | -4 | -3 | .6 | .99 |
Any player who would like to play what may be the 'best' practical card counting system ever devised, may obtain complete strategy tables for the Zen Count (developed by yours truly) in the 2005 edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack.
Best Card Counting Strategy
I used the Zen Count myself when playing deeply dealt single deck (back when such games were available at full payouts on naturals). You can find more information on the Zen Count here: Zen Count Indices. If I were still strictly counting cards, I would still be using the Zen Count.
However, when I switched to shuffle tracking, I switched to the Hi-Lo Lite count. I made that switch because I wanted an easier count (to allow for the complications added by shuffle tracking) without giving up much power. You can find a link to information on the Hi-Lo Lite at the upper left of this page, with complete information in Blackbelt in Blackjack. ♠
Best Card Counting Strategy Chart
For more information on card counting and other methods used by professional gamblers to win at blackjack, see Arnold Snyder's Blackbelt in Blackjack. For more information on all aspects of the game of blackjack, including its history and stories of its great players, see Arnold Snyder's Big Book of Blackjack.
Return to Blackjack Forum Professional Gambling Library
Return to Blackjack Forum Online Home