Zen Count Vs. Hi-Opt II (No Ace Side-Count)

Southpaw

Well-Known Member
#1
Per the request of zengrifter, I prepared a simulation to compare the two said counts. Here is my write up of the simulation:


Zen Count Vs. Hi-Opt II

The purpose of this simulation is to see how the Hi-Opt II (with no ace side-count) fares against the Zen Count. For obvious reasons, the Zen Count will be victorious in near any game, so I will be using a set of house rules that gives the Hi-Opt II (with no ace-side count) the best possible chance of winning in today’s playing environment. Clearly, if Hi-Opt were to win this, it would be because of its superior playing efficiency. Therefore, I will give it a game where BS deviations are very important. Let’s say we stumbled across a juicy single-deck game in some dust joint that just opened. The rules are as follows:

1D, H17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, SP to 2, .65 Pen, DAS, DD 9-11, No Surrender, 1 Card to split aces, face-down, head-on.

The games REALLY do not come better than this one. If you find one that doesn’t assign a pit-boss to stand behind EVERY player's chair, do PM me.

To give Hi-Opt II even more advantage, we will use a conservative betting range of 1-2. (Any higher betting ranges would surely give the win to the Zen Count because of it’s superior BC).

When comparing two systems, it is ideal to have the two systems jump their bet when they have the exact same advantage. At a TC of +2, the Zen Count has a TBA of +0.797%, while Hi-Opt II has an advantage of 0.784%. These are close enough for all practical purposes, so I will set each system to jump their bet to two units at a TC of +2 or higher.

A note on indexes. I am not using all of the Hi-Opt II indexes for this sim. I am using about 90 of them, which is many more than most players use. To further disadvantage the Zen Count, I am not even going to use the indexes that were made for the Zen Count. I am going to use the same ones that the Hi-Opt II uses, which are quite different in some cases because of the fact that Hi-Opt neglects Aces, while Zen counts them as a large card, which is incorrect for the purpose of most BS deviations. However, I will still set Zen’s Insurance index to +4 (remember single-deck) as it should be.

The results are as follows.

(1 Billion Hands)
Hi-Opt II: +0.590%
Zen Count: +0.633%


As you can see, the Zen count still beats the Hi-Opt II (with no Ace-side count), even when HO2 had every conceivable advantage.



Zen Count Vs. Hi-Opt II (No Ace Side-Count): DD and 6 Deck Games

First off, it should be mentioned that this comparison is going to give the HO2 an inherent advantage, for I will not include Wonging in these simulations. The reason this is disadvantageous to the Zen-Count is that the Zen-Count would be able to more effectively indicate when the deck is poor, as a direct result of its superior BC. The reason it is not feasible to program this simulation to include Wonging is that in order to make this a fair comparison, one would have to somehow tell the program “wong-out when the deck is unfavorable by x%.” Intuition might tell you that it would be fair to simply program the simulation to have both the Zen and HO2 counts to wong-out at -2, for example. This would be an erroneous assumption, however, as one count might be wonging out at a higher frequency than the other due to differences in their count. Intuition tells me that the HO2 would be wonging out more frequently because it seems that the magnitude of its TC (and RC) ranges greater than that of the Zen Count. This would give the HO2 a significant advantage because it would be playing less hands total, effectively eliminating more unfavorable situations than would the Zen Count. If you don’t believe that the magnitude of HO2‘s counts become greater than that of Zen Count, compare the indexes of the two counts. You’ll find that the indexes for HO2 are consistently higher than those of the Zen Count. Therefore, because of the difficulty associated in comparing the counts with wonging included, I will neglect the effect that it will have in the comparison. However, do keep in mind that Zen-Count is even better than the simulation depicts because it has the potential to more accurately tell the player when to wong out.

For the two-deck game, the spread we will be using is a 1-5 spread. This spread is somewhat conservative, in my opinion, from my “kitchen table” that is. Increasing the spread to 1-7, which is what I would have probably recommended, would increase the Zen-Count’s advantage because of its superior BC. However, for this simulation, we will only use a 1-5 spread. As I have mentioned in previous posts, to make a worthwhile comparison, you must have the two counts being examined jumping their bets when the deck is equally advantageous to both counts. Fortunately, these two counts experience near the exact same advantage at a TC of +3, which happens to be in the neighborhood of TBA = .495-.500%. So, the two counts will jump their bets to 5 units at a TC of +3, while betting only 1 unit during all other counts.

On the subject of indexes, the Zen Count will be further disadvantaged; both systems will be using the same set of 90 or so indexes. These indexes, however, were designed for HO2, not the Zen Count. The only indexes that will differ are the system’s respective insurance indexes and soft 18 v. A. The second index is not important at all.

The rules for the DD game will be as follows:

2D, H17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, SP to 2, .60 Pen, DAS, DOA2, No Surrender, 1 Card to split aces, face-down, head-on.

The results are as follows:

(1 Billion Hands)
Zen-Count: +0.671%
Hi-Opt II (no ace side-count): +0.622%


Again, the Zen-Count is victorious, even though it was at a disadvantage in this sim.

Next, I will run a similar simulation comparing the two system’s performance in six-deck games.

For the six-deck game, the spread we will be using is a 1-8 spread. This spread is somewhat conservative, in my opinion, from my “kitchen table” that is. Increasing the spread to 1-10 or even 1-20, which is what I would have probably recommended, would increase the Zen-Count’s advantage because of its superior BC. However, for this simulation, we will only use a 1-8 spread. As I have mentioned in previous posts, to make a worthwhile comparison, you must have the two counts being examined jumping their bets when the deck is equally advantageous to both counts. These two counts experience near the exact same advantage at a TC of +7 (Zen Count: TBA = +1.320%; HO2: TBA = +1.402%). So, the two counts will jump their bets to 8 units at a TC of +7, while betting only 1 unit during all other counts.

Indexes will be handled the same way as mentioned above.

For reasons mentioned above there will be no wonging for this simulation. A condition that once again is to the disadvantage of Zen.

The Rules for the Six-deck game will be as follows:

6D, H17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, RSP to 3, .67 Pen, DAS, DOA2, No Surrender, 1 Card to split aces, face-up, head-on.

The results are as follows:

(1 Billion Hands)
Zen-Count: +0.093%
Hi-Opt II (no ace side-count): +0.003%


Once again, the Zen Count is victorious. Although the difference between the two counts may seem small, keep in mind that this comparison is quite biased in the favor of HO2. Adding wonging, a more realistic betting spread and giving the Zen Count its proper indexes would increase the difference significantly.

Now to see if LS and restricted indices changes anything. For these simulations, each count will be getting their proper indices. A note on surrender indices. Arnold Snyder did not bother to provide Surrender indices (at least this is what CVData tells me; his complete strategy indicates that one should surrender 16 v. 9, v. 10 and v. A, regardless of the count. Humble on the other hand, provides NUMEROUS surrender indices. He even goes as far to tell you that you should surrender 12 v.9 at a TC of 29 and 13 v. 7 at a TC of 34. Yeah, O.K. Lance, I’ll keep these things in mind. As you can see, adding the LS is going to give HO2 a big advantage because of the fact that it has much more detailed indices for the surrender play. This is quite significant for the hand-held games, especially since I am programming the game to be head-on. An index generator would be the solution to finding all the indices that Snyder didn’t provide. I, however, don’t feel the motive to bust out the old index generator for this purpose.

The rules will be as follows for the first simulation:

1D, H17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, SP to 2, .65 Pen, DAS, DD 9-11, LS, 1 Card to split aces, face-down, head-on.

Each count will range its bets 1-2, betting two units on TC’s greater than 2. There will be no wonging.

Results:

(1 Billion Hands)
HO2 (no ASC, full indices): +0.822%
Zen Count (Full indices): +0.672%


HO2 (No ASC) is the clear winner here. There is absolutely no question about this. The detailed surrender indices gave HO2 a huge edge in this game, on top of it’s superior PE. However, I don’t think single-deck, 3:2 games with 65% pen and LS exist. If they do, I highly doubt you’d have the luxury of playing head-on, regardless of the time of day.

Next, we’ll move to the DD game and see how LS affects this game.

The rules will be:

2D, H17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, SP to 2, .60 Pen, DAS, DOA2, LS Card to split aces, face-down, head-on.

Each count will be spreading 1-5., betting 5 units on TC’s greater than or equal to 3, while betting 1 unit on all other hands. There, again, will be no wonging.

Results:

(1 Billion Hands)
HO2 (no ASC, full indices): +0.849%
Zen Count (Full indices): +0.755%


Again the HO2 (no ASC) beats Zen by more than a small margin. Perhaps for similar reasons as explained for the single-deck. Do they offer DD games with LS? I doubt it, though a few casinos might.

Now let’s see what happens when we look at a shoe game.

The rules will be as follows:

6D, H17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, RSP to 3, .67 Pen, DAS, DOA2, No Surrender, 1 Card to split aces, face-up, head-on.

Each count will spread its bets 1-8, betting 8 units on TC’s greater than or equal to 7, while betting 1 unit on all other hands. There again will be no wonging. This overly conservative spread and lack of wonging will prove to give the HO2 a sizable advantage over the Zen.

Results:

(1 Billion Hands)
HO2 (full indices, no ASC): +.203%
Zen (Full indices): +0.177%


Again HO2 is victorious. Finding a game like this would be a lot easier to do. Playing with this sort of spread without wonging would be a mistake, however. Adding a larger spread and / or wonging would be to Zen’s advantage.

 
Last edited:

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#2
I read in your other post that you consider hi opt 2 obsolete. even after this sim, do you still consider it to be? If yes, then you have some real problems.

so what you are saying here is that as long as you don't give hi opt 2 the full advantage that it is CAPABLE of, then it will beat zen. Can you make zen better with ASC? Nope. why don't you run a sim of what the best version of zen can do vs. the best of of what hi opt can do, and post it.

even after all of this, at the end of the day, money is what matters. both counts do well regardless, but I wouldn't be taking any advice from you, the 0 experience "kitchen table" counter, telling semi pros and pros your evidence of zen over HO2.
 
Last edited:

fwb

Well-Known Member
#3
Southpaw said:
The games REALLY do not come better than this one. If you find one that doesn’t assign a pit-boss to stand behind EVERY players chair, do PM me.
It starts with a W...
 
#4
Southpaw said:
The results are as follows.

(1 Billion Hands)
Hi-Opt II: +0.590%
Zen Count: +0.633%


As you can see, the Zen count still beats the Hi-Opt II (with no Ace-side count), even when Hi-Opt had every conceivable advantage.
[/COLOR]
We need a couple more simes - with a 2D h17 1-5 spread and a 6D h17 1-8 spread, to see if we can lay to rest this matter of HO2 w/o sidecount beating ZEN. zg
 
#5
Jack_Black said:
so what you are saying here is that as long as you don't give hi opt 2 the full advantage that it is CAPABLE of, then it will beat zen. Can you make zen better with ASC? Nope. why don't you run a sim of what the best version of zen can do vs. the best of of what hi opt can do, and post it.
He ran that for me. Part of the reason he switched from HO2 to ZEN, keeping his HO2 indices was because of my posts. I've advocated that AO2 players do the same thing.

Without going into the varied reasons why I agree with Snyder and Uston as to HO2 being "obsolete"
(a system that I used effectively for years - would the word "antiquated" be better?), one hole in my
concept is IF HO2 w/o sidecount beats ZEN. zg

--> Note: My lable of obsolete does not imply that HO2 and AO2 are not strong.
..............RAPC'73 is strong too, but similarly antiquated.
 
Last edited:

Southpaw

Well-Known Member
#6
Jack_Black said:
I read in your other post that you consider hi opt 2 obsolete. even after this sim, do you still consider it to be? If yes, then you have some real problems.

so what you are saying here is that as long as you don't give hi opt 2 the full advantage that it is CAPABLE of, then it will beat zen. Can you make zen better with ASC? Nope. why don't you run a sim of what the best version of zen can do vs. the best of of what hi opt can do, and post it.

even after all of this, at the end of the day, money is what matters. both counts do well regardless, but I wouldn't be taking any advice from you, the 0 experience "kitchen table" counter, telling semi pros and pros your evidence of zen over HO2.
Jack_Black: If we were to let Hi-Opt II have it's maximum capability by giving it a side-count, it would of course bet the Zen-Count in any simulation, for it's PE and BC are both higher. However, there is some debate as to how practical playing HO2 is today's shoe-ridden gaming environment. Of course you could play against the 6-5 single-deck games, but in my opinion, "from my kitchen table" that is, these games are extremely hard to beat. Much harder than today's shoes.

The Zen-Count is truly a COMPROMISED form of the HO2. This is for two reasons:

1. It considers the ace as only half a big card for betting decisions.
2. It considers 6's as +2, when it is better to consider them as +1, as does HO2. However, in order to keep the Zen-Count balanced, this is what needed to be done.

Even after these compromises, you still end up with a truly great system that "most" will agree is more practical than playing HO2 with an ace side-count. The requirements that you be able to keep two counts, on top of having to be able to accurately estimate the remaining decks down to a 1/4 are ones that most will find difficult. However, if you can accurately estimate to the nearest 1/4 deck after half of an 8-deck game has been dealt, then sure, the HO2 system with an Ace side-count is for you.
 
Last edited:

Southpaw

Well-Known Member
#7
zengrifter said:
He ran that for me. Part of the reason he switched from HO2 to ZEN, keeping his HO2 indices was because of my posts. I've advocated that AO2 players do the same thing.

Without going into the varied reasons why I agree with Snyder and Uston as to HO2 being "obsolete"
(a system that I used effectively for years - would the word "antiquated" be better?), one hole in my
concept is IF HO2 w/o sidecount beats ZEN. zg

--> Note: My lable of obsolete does not imply that HO2 and AO2 are not strong.
..............RAPC'73 is strong too, but similarly antiquated.
I will run the simulations and have the results later in the day. It is my prediction that Zen is going to beat HO2 (no ace-side count) by a margin as great as .2% in these games.
 

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#8
Southpaw said:
Jack_Black: If we were to let Hi-Opt II have it's maximum capability by giving it a side-count, it would of course bet the Zen-Count in any simulation, for it's PE and BC are both higher. However, there is some debate as to how practical playing HO2 is today's shoe-ridden gaming environment. Of course you could play against the 6-5 single-deck games, but in my opinion, "from my kitchen table" that is, these games are extremely hard to beat. Much harder than today's shoes.
wasn't your comparison sim using a SD game?
counting a 6:5 game is a waste of time.
The majority of the games are shoes, but there are still plenty of DD and a litte 3:2 SD that HO2 would destroy.

Southpaw said:
Even after these compromises, you still end up with a truly great system that "most" will agree is more practical than playing HO2 with an ace side-count. The requirements that you be able to keep two counts, on top of having to be able to accurately estimate the remaining decks down to a 1/4 are ones that most will find difficult. However, if you can accurately estimate to the nearest 1/4 deck after half of an 8-deck game has been dealt, then sure, the HO2 system with an Ace side-count is for you.
who uses 1/4 estimation on a shoe game in general? most people use 1/2 and 1 deck estimation. SO, if you would like to use HO2 on a shoe, use 1 deck estimation and check against 4 ace/1deck for aces that have been seen or unseen.

as a matter of fact, I will run a sim of just the opposite of yours. Let's see if HO2 will benefit from using a -1 tag for the aces, or even -2.
 
#9
zengrifter said:
We need a couple more simes - with a 2D h17 1-5 spread and a 6D h17 1-8 spread, to see if we can lay to rest this matter of HO2 w/o sidecount beating ZEN. zg
It doesn't. Does anyone believe it does? Zen is even better for playing decisions, when using a big spread.
 
#11
Automatic Monkey said:
It doesn't. Does anyone believe it does? Zen is even better for playing decisions, when using a big spread.
Dr. Stork and a number of others have supposedly proved this with sims -
blowing a leg out from under my argument, but I wanted independent confirmation.

Southpaw has reinforced my position, thanks! zg
 
Last edited:

Southpaw

Well-Known Member
#13
zengrifter said:
Dr. Stork and a number of others have supposedly proved this with sims -
blowing a leg out from under my argument, but I wanted independent confirmation.

Southpaw has reinforced my position, thanks! zg
Not a problem.
 
#14
Southpaw said:
However, there is some debate as to how practical playing HO2 is today's shoe-ridden gaming environment. Of course you could play against the 6-5 single-deck games, but in my opinion, "from my kitchen table" that is, these games are extremely hard to beat. Much harder than today's shoes.
Most of the HO2 being advocated is for 2D.

Dr. Brett Harris, BTW, ran sims showing ZEN beating RPC in euro-ENHC 6&8D games, which surprised even him. zg
 
Last edited:

Southpaw

Well-Known Member
#16
zengrifter said:
Most of the HO2 being advocated is for 2D.

Dr. Brett Harris, BTW, ran sims showing ZEN beating RPC in euro-ENHC 6&8D games, which surprised even him. zg
I don't think it's worth the extra effort of keeping a side-count of aces. Perhaps in a single-deck 3:2 game, the extra advantage would seem more meaningful to me, but I think Snyder hit the jackpot by formulating the Zen count. In my eyes, it is the perfect compromise.

I believe it, despite how high the BC of the RPC is. What kind of betting range was he using, if you know? A lower betting spread would give the advantage to the RPC, while a lower one would give Zen the advantage in this comparison.
 

Deathclutch

Well-Known Member
#18
Southpaw said:
I don't think it's worth the extra effort of keeping a side-count of aces. Perhaps in a single-deck 3:2 game, the extra advantage would seem more meaningful to me, but I think Snyder hit the jackpot by formulating the Zen count. In my eyes, it is the perfect compromise.
I agree with you on 4 deck and up games, but there is almost no effort whatsoever to keeping track of A-H in a two deck game.

When doing these sims why take away the entire point of using Hi Opt II? It's for one or two deck games and really needs the ASC.

Let's run sims with Zen taking away it's strong point, let's sim both using no spread whatsoever. We can make sims show whatever results we want with our bias.
 
#19
Dc

Deathclutch said:
I agree with you on 4 deck and up games, but there is almost no effort whatsoever to keeping track of A-H in a two deck game.

When doing these sims why take away the entire point of using Hi Opt II? It's for one or two deck games and really needs the ASC.

Let's run sims with Zen taking away it's strong point, let's sim both using no spread whatsoever. We can make sims show whatever results we want with our bias.
DC,

Nice to see you posting,,,hope all is well,,,keep in touch.:)

Friend,
CP
 

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#20
Southpaw said:
I don't think it's worth the extra effort of keeping a side-count of aces. Perhaps in a single-deck 3:2 game, the extra advantage would seem more meaningful to me, but I think Snyder hit the jackpot by formulating the Zen count. In my eyes, it is the perfect compromise.
extra effort? you play 4-5 hours on your kitchen table everyday, and doing an ASC is extra effort? keeping a SC and adding 10 SCORE points minimum is well worth the effort. HO2 shines for SD and DD, and you said it yourself, zen is a great COMPROMISE, if you really don't want to do ASC, but it will never replace it. also, I'm gonna be pretty busy for the next couple of days. Do you mind setting up my sim of HO2 with a -1 Ace tag from your kitchen table for me?


Also, I'm glad to see Deathclutch posting again. hope all is well.
 
Top