The search for the 'best' card counting system is the search for an illusion. That's partly because the card counting system that gets the best results in a blackjack card counting simulation is typically not possible for humans to use with computer accuracy. Also, computer simulation programs have problems accurately simulating the actual techniques used in the best blackjack card counting systems. If you're looking for the 'best' card counting system, let this be your first guide.
Arnold Snyder's Blackjack Forum Online Home Arnold Snyder Contact Information About Arnold Snyder's Blackjack Forum Online How to Win at Blackjack Arnold Snyder's Blackjack Forum, Trade Journal for Professional Gamblers Since 1981, New Issue Blackjack and Gambling Forums Moderated by Professional Gamblers Hi Lo Lite Card Counting System from the Blackjack Forum Gambling Library Best Internet Casinos and Smart Online Gaming Gambling Books Recommended by Professional Gamblers Links to Gambling Sites Recommended by Professional Gamblers  
 

The Best Card Counting System

 
best blackjack card counting system
 
ANALYSIS & THEORY OF BLACKJACK
The Easiest Professional Level Card Counting System Excerpt from Beat the 6-Deck Game
    How to Use Frequency Distributions to
    Determine Your Win Rate and
    Fluctuations
    By Arnold Snyder
Best Opportunities Right Now for Blackjack Players The Hi-Lo Lite and Rounding Indices:
    Why All Those Index Numbers Card
    Counters Have Been Learning For
    Years Never Really Mattered
    By Arnold Snyder
How Professional Gamblers Win How True is Your True Count?
    By Arnold Snyder w/ Dr. John Gwynn Jr.
Card Counting Reality A Side-Counting Super Counter?
    By Arnold Snyder
Card Counting Reality The "Best" Card Counting System:
    A Comparison of the Red Seven, KO,
    and Hi-Lo Counts (And How Blackjack
    Systems Are Best Compared)
    By Arnold Snyder
    with computer sims by John Auston
 
A New Novel By
Arnold Snyder:



Risk of Ruin is love story between two misfits: an antisocial biker / professional blackjack player and an underage stripper who believes she's God.

$11.99 / $2.99 Kindle, 260 pages
Vegas Lit (Huntington Press)
Order Risk of Ruin Now

 
 
Computer Power to the People!!
Courtesy of ET Fan:

professional blackjack card counting simulation software also works for other professional gambling techniques
 
 



 

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:

A

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).

Count

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.

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.


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

 

 
© 2004-2005 Blackjack Forum Online, All Rights Reserved
 
 
 
  The Search for the Best Card Counting System
Arnold Snyder shows why the search for the "best" card counting system is a waste of time in terms of earning money with blackjack card counting. He also provides data showing the best practical blackjack card counting system.