Einstein Variation
Charles Einstein, in 1968, was the first to suggest that Aces should be removed from the RC altogether. Because of their dual nature i.e., the fact that they can be regarded as high or low cards depending upon the situation Einstein claimed that Aces should be counted as neutral. It is a somewhat valid point theoretically, but ignoring the Aces in the RC is obviously problematic. Several other authors (e.g. Griffen, Cardoza, Revere, Silberstang, Humble and Cooper) promoting their own “unique” counting systems later also jumped aboard the Aces = 0 bandwagon. Although some of their systems were reasonably good and are still being used successfully by assorted players, they all possessed at least two very serious inherent drawbacks.
First, in blackjack, Aces are the most important card in the deck. The number of Aces available to be dealt is extremely important to the player; therefore, if Aces are not included in the RC, they must be kept track of separately by means of what is known as an Ace “side-count.” The maintenance of any side-count is difficult to master for even professional counters, since it represents an additional set of numbers that must be kept in mind throughout the shoe. Unless you have an exceptional aptitude for this type of mental gymnastics, side-counts are neither feasible nor advisable.
Second, if the Aces are counted as 0 in the RC, the “balance” of the complete-deck point-values is necessarily disturbed. An otherwise neutral deck would appear to be -I- 4, because of the surplus of little cards being counted as “pluses” if the Aces were ignored. The point-values of the cards had to be adjusted to restore point-count equilibrium to the shoes. Consequently the lowly 2 was sacrificed, being demoted from -I-1 to be considered as 0, along with the Aces, 7s, 8s, and 9s.
Ignoring the 2s only exacerbates the problem. It is an unacceptable practice, since it forces an additional fault upon the counting system by calling this obvious plus-card a neutral merely in order to justify the questionable practice of counting the Aces as 0. A more reasonable plus-count adjustment was suggested by Revere in his “Advanced Plus-Minus” system, in which he counted the 9s (which are rated slightly negative anyway) as 1 to compensate for Aces equaling 0.
While it is true that Aces normally act as the highest cards (boasting a value of 11), they do occasionally masquerade as low cards (meekly offering up a value of just 1) if necessary. According to Stanford Wong’s research, however, counting the Aces as 1 rather than 0 in the RC can more accurately determine proper bet-ranging. This is more vital than playing absolutely correct MBS (and insurance situations) because of more specific Ace information obtained through side-counts. It is far more important to have correct amounts wagered, i.e., always in direct proportion to one’s advantage, since these situations occur much more frequently than the rare MBS adjustments or insurance opportunities. In other words, slightly less accurate plays when these rarer circumstances arise will hurt you less than regularly having the wrong-sized bet out. Since Aces are generally played as high cards and are a benefit to the player when available to be dealt, it is unreasonable to discount their overall impact on the TC simply because they sometimes act as low cards. Therefore, any advantage that might possibly be gained by changing the cards’ point-values in the RC merely to account for this duality of the Aces is certainly more than offset by the additional effort required to track them separately by means of side-counting.
