Hi-Opt II Charts
- Thread starter PokerJunky
- Start date
If you followed this thread, we can presume that your Ace reckoning is insufficient, yet most of your gain relies upon BETTING EFFICIENCY. So the easiest way to reintroduce that missing efficiency is to simply add the 2(+1) and the A(-1) to your primary count. As for how much your EV will increase, I estimate about 10% relative. zg
zengrifter, I can't get the articles you mentioned in your posts!
I can't get this 2 articles:-
1) Start here, page 12 -
(Dead link: http://cardcounter.com/Interview_Zen_Grifter.pdf)
2) Then here -
(Dead link: http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=343)
BTW, I already have the Blaclkbelt in blackjack, should I consider to buy "Malmuth's BJ Essays" or "GeoC's Shuffle Tracking for Beginners" or Arnold Snyder's Shuffle Tracking Cookbook ?
please send it to me!
cheers
ssho88
I can't get this 2 articles:-
1) Start here, page 12 -
(Dead link: http://cardcounter.com/Interview_Zen_Grifter.pdf)
2) Then here -
(Dead link: http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=343)
BTW, I already have the Blaclkbelt in blackjack, should I consider to buy "Malmuth's BJ Essays" or "GeoC's Shuffle Tracking for Beginners" or Arnold Snyder's Shuffle Tracking Cookbook ?
please send it to me!
cheers
ssho88
Don't bother with anything about shuffle tracking until you're VERY good at card counting. Once you're good enough at card counting that you're getting bored with it, you MIGHT be ready for shuffle tracking.
Shuffle tracking is tougher than these books make it sound. I'm guessing that only 5% of successful card counters will be successful shuffle trackers.
Shuffle tracking is tougher than these books make it sound. I'm guessing that only 5% of successful card counters will be successful shuffle trackers.
Zen Indices
ZEN count will work fine with HO2 indices. BUT if you are willing to relearn the indices here they are -
http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm
I recommend that you either stick with the HO2 indices that you already know, or you simplify the ZEN indices per my interview instructions below. zg
------------
INTERVIEW EXCERPT -
You’ve often stated that precise index numbers are not important.
Can you explain why you feel that way?
While other experts emphasize the top 20 or so index plays, I advocate the use of 60+ indices, and personally utilize 80+ with my Zen count. The endlessly debated point I’ve been making is that so-called precision index numbers are a “myth” and offer no significant added gain over extreme-rounded numbers! Whether one uses an index “granularity-scale” of 0-1-2-3-4-5-6 or 0-2-4-6 or even 0-3-6 it will make absolutely no difference in actual casino play spanning three million hands, which is ten years of full time play. Time is money and ‘extreme-rounded’ index numbers can be deployed faster in real casino conditions. You gain much more in ease and resultant speed than you lose in lost precision. This has been pointed out previously by Snyder in his Hi-Lo Lite and True Edge Zen, in Ken Fuchs’ Hi-Lo Express, in George C’s Extreme Rounded Zen, and by John Imming, who developed the Universal Blackjack Engine and simulated billions of hands to prove this very point.
It seems you have broken away from the card counter “orthodoxy” over this and the related use of intuition?
The hit-stand-double index for basic strategy departure is a wide-border “coin-toss” zone of perhaps two digits, plus or minus. Therefore, I encourage the use of one’s intuition when the decision is close. If decision by coin-toss will not reduce our effectiveness for these ever-frequent wide-border decisions, does it not stand to reason that we can learn to increasingly utilize the ‘meta-awareness’ faculties of our brain and “go with the force,” so to speak, to potentially obtain a subjective improvement over raw statistical expectation?
Consider for example, that while our conscious mind may not be aware of that extra 4 or 5 still remaining in the deck, and not evident by our true count of +1 when we face 16 vs. 10, modern science tells us that our brain did notice the hit-not-stand situation, despite a true count indication to the contrary.
I once debated this issue with Don Schlesinger, who labeled my approach “sloppy, with no inherent advantage over precise.” I countered that if he was to replace “sloppy” with “fuzzy,” as in what computer science calls ‘fuzzy-logic,’ I would opt for the latter.
To summarize, one should strive for 60+ indices, but use a coarser granularity scale of two to four digits wide, individually tailored for ‘pattern-recognition’ ease. For example, if your index for 12 vs. 2 and 12 vs. 3 is +4 and +2 respectively, you can re-label both at +3 so they’re easier to remember and faster to utilize. Or by the same token, all indices of -1,0, and +1 can be rounded to 0, and so forth. So, re-label 60+ indices and learn accordingly.
Further, strive to play faster and longer. If 40+ extra indices can increase one’s relative expectation by 20%, and if we can increase our playing speed by, say 20%, and then add to that a 20% longer average playing day, then we have potentially increased our per-day EV by perhaps 70%. And that’s not even counting the intuition potentiality.
60+ index departures? Isn’t that a lot of numbers to learn?
Is it feasible for novices?
Today’s emphasis on the so-called ‘Illustrious-18' indexes has conditioned newer counters to not attempt learning more - but learning 60 or so is actually fast and easy.
How should a beginner go about it?
Use ‘flash-cards’ - just like when we learned our multiplication tables. Start by ordering the cards in sequence, then after awhile when that is mastered, randomize the cards. Most novices will be pleasantly surprised to find the additional 40+ numbers mastered within a few hours of practice.
Which indices should comprise the “Grifter-60+”?
Well, lets see, off the top of my head:
12 vs. 2-6; 13 vs. 2-6; 14 vs. 2-6&9-10;15 vs. 2&9-A; 16 vs. 9-A; 8 vs. 4-6; 9 vs. 2-4&7;10 vs. 8-A; 11 vs. 8-A; A8 vs. 4-6; A9 vs. 4-6; 88 vs. 10-A; 99 vs. A; 10s vs. 4-6.
That should do it... oh, and learn separate numbers for dealer 6 and Ace, depending on whether the rules are hit-or-stand on soft-17, and assuming that one plays both versions.
So you really think that its worth the extra effort?
Yes, if you play more than a few times per year. 60+ indices also aid your camouflage slightly, since most surveillance and pit staff only know, at best, the ‘I-18.’
END EXCERPT
----------------------
ZEN count will work fine with HO2 indices. BUT if you are willing to relearn the indices here they are -
http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/Zen_Count_Indices.htm
I recommend that you either stick with the HO2 indices that you already know, or you simplify the ZEN indices per my interview instructions below. zg
------------
INTERVIEW EXCERPT -
You’ve often stated that precise index numbers are not important.
Can you explain why you feel that way?
While other experts emphasize the top 20 or so index plays, I advocate the use of 60+ indices, and personally utilize 80+ with my Zen count. The endlessly debated point I’ve been making is that so-called precision index numbers are a “myth” and offer no significant added gain over extreme-rounded numbers! Whether one uses an index “granularity-scale” of 0-1-2-3-4-5-6 or 0-2-4-6 or even 0-3-6 it will make absolutely no difference in actual casino play spanning three million hands, which is ten years of full time play. Time is money and ‘extreme-rounded’ index numbers can be deployed faster in real casino conditions. You gain much more in ease and resultant speed than you lose in lost precision. This has been pointed out previously by Snyder in his Hi-Lo Lite and True Edge Zen, in Ken Fuchs’ Hi-Lo Express, in George C’s Extreme Rounded Zen, and by John Imming, who developed the Universal Blackjack Engine and simulated billions of hands to prove this very point.
It seems you have broken away from the card counter “orthodoxy” over this and the related use of intuition?
The hit-stand-double index for basic strategy departure is a wide-border “coin-toss” zone of perhaps two digits, plus or minus. Therefore, I encourage the use of one’s intuition when the decision is close. If decision by coin-toss will not reduce our effectiveness for these ever-frequent wide-border decisions, does it not stand to reason that we can learn to increasingly utilize the ‘meta-awareness’ faculties of our brain and “go with the force,” so to speak, to potentially obtain a subjective improvement over raw statistical expectation?
Consider for example, that while our conscious mind may not be aware of that extra 4 or 5 still remaining in the deck, and not evident by our true count of +1 when we face 16 vs. 10, modern science tells us that our brain did notice the hit-not-stand situation, despite a true count indication to the contrary.
I once debated this issue with Don Schlesinger, who labeled my approach “sloppy, with no inherent advantage over precise.” I countered that if he was to replace “sloppy” with “fuzzy,” as in what computer science calls ‘fuzzy-logic,’ I would opt for the latter.
To summarize, one should strive for 60+ indices, but use a coarser granularity scale of two to four digits wide, individually tailored for ‘pattern-recognition’ ease. For example, if your index for 12 vs. 2 and 12 vs. 3 is +4 and +2 respectively, you can re-label both at +3 so they’re easier to remember and faster to utilize. Or by the same token, all indices of -1,0, and +1 can be rounded to 0, and so forth. So, re-label 60+ indices and learn accordingly.
Further, strive to play faster and longer. If 40+ extra indices can increase one’s relative expectation by 20%, and if we can increase our playing speed by, say 20%, and then add to that a 20% longer average playing day, then we have potentially increased our per-day EV by perhaps 70%. And that’s not even counting the intuition potentiality.
60+ index departures? Isn’t that a lot of numbers to learn?
Is it feasible for novices?
Today’s emphasis on the so-called ‘Illustrious-18' indexes has conditioned newer counters to not attempt learning more - but learning 60 or so is actually fast and easy.
How should a beginner go about it?
Use ‘flash-cards’ - just like when we learned our multiplication tables. Start by ordering the cards in sequence, then after awhile when that is mastered, randomize the cards. Most novices will be pleasantly surprised to find the additional 40+ numbers mastered within a few hours of practice.
Which indices should comprise the “Grifter-60+”?
Well, lets see, off the top of my head:
12 vs. 2-6; 13 vs. 2-6; 14 vs. 2-6&9-10;15 vs. 2&9-A; 16 vs. 9-A; 8 vs. 4-6; 9 vs. 2-4&7;10 vs. 8-A; 11 vs. 8-A; A8 vs. 4-6; A9 vs. 4-6; 88 vs. 10-A; 99 vs. A; 10s vs. 4-6.
That should do it... oh, and learn separate numbers for dealer 6 and Ace, depending on whether the rules are hit-or-stand on soft-17, and assuming that one plays both versions.
So you really think that its worth the extra effort?
Yes, if you play more than a few times per year. 60+ indices also aid your camouflage slightly, since most surveillance and pit staff only know, at best, the ‘I-18.’
END EXCERPT
----------------------
Perfect reply, thanks zg!
I noticed a lot of Zen's indices are similar if not exact to HO2.
I'm also intrigued by your suggestions in your interview.
I learned HO2 indxs by flashcards, but I really like your idea of combining indices such as your example with 12 v 2 (+4) and 12 v 3 (+2) making them both (+3)
Thanks for the quick response
-jet
I noticed a lot of Zen's indices are similar if not exact to HO2.
I'm also intrigued by your suggestions in your interview.
I learned HO2 indxs by flashcards, but I really like your idea of combining indices such as your example with 12 v 2 (+4) and 12 v 3 (+2) making them both (+3)
Thanks for the quick response
-jet
Extremely neophyte questions, mon frer. Any true-count system (ie balanced count) requires a running count, whereas a running count system (ie, unbalanced count) does NOT requier a true-count adjustment.
I've only used ZEN since the mid-80s but KO will perform reasonably close in actual casino play. zg
I've only used ZEN since the mid-80s but KO will perform reasonably close in actual casino play. zg
KO is good because its comprarable to HiLo in casino performance yet does not require a true-count coversion, entirely based on running-count, simpler.
The next steps up from KO is Red7 and unbal'dZEN, both of which are also running-count based systems - red7 slightly out performs KO and UBZEN slightly out performs red7. zg
The next steps up from KO is Red7 and unbal'dZEN, both of which are also running-count based systems - red7 slightly out performs KO and UBZEN slightly out performs red7. zg
Timekeeper, I use the full KO system, I am happy with it and I am successful with it. It's so simple to use in the casino and I can carry on with conversations as I play. I originally started with Hi-Lo then switched to HO1 which was a nightmare trying to use against 8 decks here on the east coast.
While KO is easy to use it does have its drawbacks. The system requires a lot of patience waiting for positive shoes against lousy penetration below 75%. Changing deck sizes requires learning new key, pivot points and indexes which on occasion causes errors. Finally from my experience KO won't make you much money unless you use large bet spreads. I currently use 1-20 or 1-15 spread, but I started out using 1-10 spreads and found I was making little money. With my trading background I learned one of the most important things to understand is risk management and bet sizing. So in order to use a 1-20 spread will require a larger bankroll as you will have very large swings in your bankroll. I made an earlier post in the "Agony of Defeat" about how I lost 8.5% of my bankroll in one game. You never should lose more than 1 or 2% on any one hand. So I would suggest having at least $10,000 bankroll for KO and play on $5 tables.
I suggest trying out a few different counting methods and use the one you can master the best. I'm not suggesting to use or not to use KO, I just thought I would share my experiences with it so far. Once you do pick a system practice like crazy. On days when I'm not at a casino I practice at least an hour a day to keep myself sharp.
While KO is easy to use it does have its drawbacks. The system requires a lot of patience waiting for positive shoes against lousy penetration below 75%. Changing deck sizes requires learning new key, pivot points and indexes which on occasion causes errors. Finally from my experience KO won't make you much money unless you use large bet spreads. I currently use 1-20 or 1-15 spread, but I started out using 1-10 spreads and found I was making little money. With my trading background I learned one of the most important things to understand is risk management and bet sizing. So in order to use a 1-20 spread will require a larger bankroll as you will have very large swings in your bankroll. I made an earlier post in the "Agony of Defeat" about how I lost 8.5% of my bankroll in one game. You never should lose more than 1 or 2% on any one hand. So I would suggest having at least $10,000 bankroll for KO and play on $5 tables.
I suggest trying out a few different counting methods and use the one you can master the best. I'm not suggesting to use or not to use KO, I just thought I would share my experiences with it so far. Once you do pick a system practice like crazy. On days when I'm not at a casino I practice at least an hour a day to keep myself sharp.
**Some misconceptions -
SystemsTrader wrote:
While KO is easy to use it does have its drawbacks. The system requires a lot of patience waiting for positive shoes against lousy penetration below 75%.
**Its the same for ALL count systems. ZEN usually won't find oppty any sooner.
Changing deck sizes requires learning new key, pivot points and indexes which on occasion causes errors.
**KO can easily be quantified for either 1&2D based composite -or- 2-8D composite. Then the only thing that will change is the IRC.
Finally from my experience KO won't make you much money unless you use large bet spreads [against 6-8D games]. I currently use 1-20 or 1-15 spread, but I started out using 1-10 spreads and found I was making little money.
**The spread for ZEN is no different. However, 1-20 is barely sufficient on a "play-all-counts" basis, whereas 1-6 is more than adequate if you are in 'wonging' mode.
With my trading background I learned one of the most important things to understand is risk management and bet sizing. So in order to use a 1-20 spread will require a larger bankroll as you will have very large swings in your bankroll. I made an earlier post in the "Agony of Defeat" about how I lost 5% of my bankroll in one game. You never should lose more than 1 or 2% on any one hand. So I would suggest having at least $10,000 bankroll for KO and play on $5 tables.
**Same 6-8D advice for ZEN. But here is the rub on spread: Spread is calculated from the top down starting with your biggest bet. A 10k BR can support a $100 top bet (or 2hands of $75 each), so your minimum bets are as follows (approx. subject to further game quality analysis):
Shoe (play all)
$5
Shoe (wong)
$15-25*
2D
$10
1D
$15-25*
*Very game quality dependent
SystemsTrader wrote:
While KO is easy to use it does have its drawbacks. The system requires a lot of patience waiting for positive shoes against lousy penetration below 75%.
**Its the same for ALL count systems. ZEN usually won't find oppty any sooner.
Changing deck sizes requires learning new key, pivot points and indexes which on occasion causes errors.
**KO can easily be quantified for either 1&2D based composite -or- 2-8D composite. Then the only thing that will change is the IRC.
Finally from my experience KO won't make you much money unless you use large bet spreads [against 6-8D games]. I currently use 1-20 or 1-15 spread, but I started out using 1-10 spreads and found I was making little money.
**The spread for ZEN is no different. However, 1-20 is barely sufficient on a "play-all-counts" basis, whereas 1-6 is more than adequate if you are in 'wonging' mode.
With my trading background I learned one of the most important things to understand is risk management and bet sizing. So in order to use a 1-20 spread will require a larger bankroll as you will have very large swings in your bankroll. I made an earlier post in the "Agony of Defeat" about how I lost 5% of my bankroll in one game. You never should lose more than 1 or 2% on any one hand. So I would suggest having at least $10,000 bankroll for KO and play on $5 tables.
**Same 6-8D advice for ZEN. But here is the rub on spread: Spread is calculated from the top down starting with your biggest bet. A 10k BR can support a $100 top bet (or 2hands of $75 each), so your minimum bets are as follows (approx. subject to further game quality analysis):
Shoe (play all)
$5
Shoe (wong)
$15-25*
2D
$10
1D
$15-25*
*Very game quality dependent
I am practicing to play at a table with, 8Decks, Hs17, DA2, DAS, NRSA, and no surrender. i have learned basic strategy but now i need a counting system. Which one should i go with? I would prefer the system with the best odds. I have seen the zen system and i doesn't seem to bad i think i would have an easy time learning that. Any opinions?
