The “Senior’s System”

Card Counting for Players with Weak Vision

by Arnold Snyder
[From Card Player, September 1994]
© 1994 Arnold Snyder

Question from a Reader:  I do not have very good eyesight. I love playing blackjack, but as you might imagine, card counting is not easy for me. I have no trouble distinguishing aces, kings, queens, jacks, or 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s or 6s on the table, but I have great difficulty distinguishing 7s, 8s, 9s and 10s from each other when they are across the table from me. So, after learning to use the high low count at home, I found I could not use it in a casino environment.

Finally, I developed my own card counting system, which I call the “Senior’s System,” for people whose eyes aren’t what they used to be. The easiest version counts jacks, queens and kings as -1, and 4s, 5s and 6s as +1. Sort of like a simplified Hi-Opt I. The more advanced version, which I use, counts jacks, queens, kings and aces as -1, and 3s, 4s, 5s, and 6s as +1. That’s my seniors’ version of the high low count.

I’ve been doing pretty well with this method of playing, but I’m wondering how good it really is. I use the standard high low strategy variations. What do you think?

Answer:  This is one of the most original (and best!) methods of card counting I’ve seen for anyone with who has vision problems. The “advanced ” method is better. It has a betting correlation of about 90%, compared to the high low’s 97%; and a playing efficiency of about 43%, compared to the high low’s 51%. So, this “Senior’s System” retains about 90% of the power of the complete high low count. That’s very impressive.

In the past, a number of blackjack players with poor vision have told me that the only system they could use was the Uston Ace-Five count, from Ken’s book, Million Dollar Blackjack (SRS, 1981), which is very inferior to the method you’ve developed. Uston’s Ace-Five Count has virtually no playing efficiency and is simply played with basic strategy. Aces count as -1, and fives count as +1. The betting correlation is about 53%, which is impressive only because the system is so simple. The 90% betting correlation you’ve attained, however, despite your bad eyes, is quite an accomplishment.

I also suspect that most of the strategy indices you are using from the high low iwill work pretty well with your simplified version of the high low count. The only computer software on the market that I know of that will devise strategy indices, and allow you to assign a 0 value to the “pip” tens and a +1 value to the “paints,” is John Imming’s Universal Blackjack Engine. If you have this software, or you know someone who does, you could devise strategy indices especifically for the Senior’s Count. If you do not have this software, my advice is to continue using the standard high low indices, as most of these are going to be pretty accurate for the Senior’s Count, and the few changes will be on more or less borderline decisions.

Played accurately, I would consider your Senior’s Count to be every bit a professional level system. Congratulations on developing a powerful method of card counting that can be used by the visually impaired!

The simpler version of your Senior’s Count, which ignores the aces and 3s, has a slightly higher playing efficiency (about 56%) than the advanced version, (and this is even higher than the high low’s 51%), but a considerably lower betting correlation, only about 80%. If you have no trouble distinguishing aces and threes, then the advanced version is definitely worth the effort. But even this simplified Senior’s Count is a vast improvement over Uston’s Ace-Five Count when it comes to total system power. Hi-Opt I indices from Lance Humble and Carl Cooper’s 1981 book, The World’s Greatest Blackjack Book (Doubleday), should work just fine if you do not have the software to devise the count specific indices.

Another excellent variation of your method would be to keep the simpler version of the Senior’s Count, using the Hi-Opt I indices for playing your hands, along with a side count of the aces for betting accuracy.

Somewhat off the subject, one of the most amusing stories I’ve heard about card counters’ efforts at camouflage was from a counter who claimed he wore wraparound sunglasses and carried a cane and represented himself at the table as being totally blind! His wife would accompany him, her job being to tell him his hand total and the dealer’s upcard. In fact, he had perfect vision and had no trouble seeing every card on the table. He claimed this act allowed him to use a very large betting spread while taking his time whenever it was needed to recall strategy indices, figure out insurance, etc. Whatever works!  ♠