Card Counting on Yablon/Red Dog ?

Applying Card Counting on the card game called Yablon/In-between or Red Dog ?

They are various card counting methods out there but are mostly used for blackjack only. Is there a card counting system for card game such as Yablon/ In between ?

If there is, which card counting system should i use? (high/low, omega, red seven and etc..) Please help me select the best one out there.

(Yablon is a very simple game. Yablon is a banking game in which two cards are dealt face up, and the player bets on whether a third card will rank between the first two cards. Mostly played in Asia and involve pretty big pool on the table.
Yes, its pretty different comparing Red dog and blackjack.

The problem now is applying the right value on the cards. Ace,King,Queen can be also an advantage and disadvantage for the player

Assuming your opening hand is Ace(1) and King and the number in between is 2,3,4…Q.
If the dealer open up the card Ace or King you are busted.

7,8,9 is assigned 0 for blackjack but in Red Dog it also can be an advantage card assuming if you get Ace or 2 in your opening hand.

Maybe i should ask a mathematician to assign the value for me lol.
I totally agree with you Zadignose. Tracking the middle card are important and should be assign a higher value but tracking other cards are equally important as well.

Let’s assumed that you have (6) and a (K) in your opening hands but the chances of obtaining 7,8,9,10,J,Q are only 6/8 if you did not track A,1,2,3,4,5, 6, K properly.

Assigning value in my opinion can be done but pretty difficult and i doubt it is worth it because it might be a level 3-4 counting difficulty.

Question posted by: hellodelli3010


Card counting in Yablon, In-between, or Red Dog is theoretically possible but significantly more challenging than in blackjack due to the game’s unique structure. While blackjack card counting assigns specific values to cards, Yablon’s nature requires a more complex approach to counting, considering the wide range of combinations possible.

To attempt card counting in Yablon, you would need to track not only the middle cards but also the cards that have already been played. This would involve memorizing which cards have appeared and keeping a mental count of the remaining cards in the deck to predict the probability of a card falling between the two dealt cards.

However, there are several factors that make card counting in Yablon difficult:

  • Constantly changing range: Unlike blackjack, where the goal is to reach a specific number (21), Yablon’s target range changes with every hand. This requires a more advanced card counting strategy.
  • Deck penetration: In most Yablon games, decks are shuffled more frequently than in blackjack, making it challenging to gain an advantage by counting cards.
  • Complexity of assigning values: As you mentioned, the value of cards in Yablon varies depending on the context, making it difficult to assign specific values to each card.
  • Betting structure: Yablon typically involves larger bets and higher risks, which can make it less suitable for card counting strategies that rely on adjusting bet sizes based on the count.

In conclusion, while card counting in Yablon is theoretically possible, it is highly challenging and may not be practical or effective due to the game’s structure and the complexity of assigning card values. Instead, players might focus on managing their bankroll, understanding the odds, and making informed decisions based on the cards dealt in each hand.


  1. Card counting systems gauge assign point to cards that are proportional to their “effect of removal” on the EV of the game being played.

    For blackjack cards 2-7 have an effect of decreasing the house edge when removed, and the rest increase it.

    So in the game of blackjack point values are assigned negative and positive number to those two groups.

    For another game entirely, the effect of removal will be different, so point assignments would need to be different. This means that blackjack card counting systems would not be ideal.

    It may be logical, that the cards that are most important in this game are the cards that are MOST likely to fall between two cards, i would imagine that cards 7,8,9 would fall between two other cards values more often than any other cards, or perhaps the cards that represent the end of the spectrum would be most valuable, since they offer you the best ability to predict when the cards will fall between them.

    You have to gauge what kind of effect each card has when its removed form the game in comparison to each other card and assign point accordingly, then use a computer to simulate at what count enough cards are removed to overcome the house advantage.

    I know nothing about the game in question, but other games are beatable by card counting, blackjack is just the most common.

    Some games are not beatable by card coutning, and i feel this may be the case for this one unfortunately from what i understand about it.

    —–Edit, after further research into the game, i found that the house edge lies in the shorting of payouts based on their odds, this would suggest that the game may be beatable if the player can detect a large anough change in the probibilities of the game , I also foudn the house edge to be somewhat small.

    I feel that it is vulnerable to card counting for the main aspect of the game using a multi paramiter count that incorperates more than two card groups.

    I also feel that the payout for ties when the dealer draws a thrid card is particularly vulnerable.

  2. It’s an interesting question. I haven’t put any deep thought into this game, but you’ve got me thinking now. Certainly, if there was no such thing as a “raise,” and the payoffs didn’t vary based on the spread between cards, there would be no point to counting cards. No deck composition would be better or worse than any other, since your odds of winning are the same regardless (when you place the initial bet before the cards are dealt out).

    It seems you’d improve your chances with lots of “medium” cards in the deck. If there were very few “medium” cards, then the payoff odds would be worse, without affecting your chances of winning (wide spreads like K-5 would be dealt, which only pay 1:1, but the lack of medium cards mean you’re no more likely to win these). Meanwhile, knowing that there was a preponderance of medium cards would give you an occasional good raise opportunity after seeing a wide spread like 4-J, and the payoff odds would sometimes be improved in the situations where you hit a 9 right in the middle of an 8-T (you’re still upset when the dealer puts down 8-T, but you’re *less* upset than you’d be if there weren’t lots of 9s in the deck).

    Therefore, it seems you would want to track “medium” cards vs. “extreme” cards. Maybe a counting system like

    7,8, or 9……………….-2
    A or K………………….+2
    2 or Q………………….+1

    Meaning you count -2 for every exposed 7, 8, or 9, etcetera. Or maybe:

    7,8, or 9………………-4
    A,2, Q or K………….+3

    But that seems harder to track.

    Computation is needed to determine what to do with this information. (also, as noted in the previous reply, you could get a more precise measure of what a “correct” count should look like). Most important is to answer this: “How probable is it that any edge gained from counting cards will be sufficient to overcome the house edge?”

    If I have any more insights, I’ll edit with whatever I find.

    Edit: Oops, Ace is one, so I changed above accordingly. Reversed signs that were mixed up.

Comments are closed.