Data
Not wanting to waste many pages in this book, I placed the data behind these tables online at:
Disclaimer
This was not a fair study — because there is no such thing as a fair, general study. Every strategy has its strong and weak points.
Ø Some strategies handle betting better. Had I increased the bet spreads, those strategies would have moved up relative to the others.
Ø Some strategies handle playing better. Had I increased the number of indexes, they would have moved up the ranks.
Ø Instead of moving to a more complex count, players can optionally increase the number of indexes. For example, moving to REKO-F or FELT-F.
Ø Although I made a stab at comparing ease of use of the various strategies earlier in this chapter, all such evaluations are subjective and depend on the particular skills of the player.
Ø Some strategies work better than others at advanced techniques, bonuses, side bets, and promotions.
Ø The highly complex strategies are more error prone, suggesting that their actual results in a casino might be lower. Again, this depends on the skills of the player.
Ø No cover betting or cover plays were included in this study.
Ø All rule sets were included, weighted by the frequency in which they are found in the U.S. But, a good player is likely to seek out better games and ignore poor games.
Conclusion
Nothing new here. The difference in complexity between a count like Hi-Lo and a level II strategy with an ace side count is substantial. Even many long-time players, practicing for years, have dropped back to simpler counts as the more complex counts are simply too tiring. Given the fairly modest gains in advantage, few people still see the rationale behind using very complex strategies.
© 2009 Norman Wattenberger
