Why is PE More Important in Handheld?

Counting systems with high playing efficiency and lower betting correlation do comparatively well in single and double deck. But they are not as effective on shoe games. Why? I suspect that the distribution of truecounts is different.

Maybe Brett Hall can answer. In particular, I wonder about the relative ranking of systems on shoe games with departure. For example, Zen might outperform Halves on double deck, but not on play-all 6 decks. But what happens with backcounting and departure?

It has to do with distribution of counts and spread. In an SD game you get very extreme counts and you can't readily walk away from them. At the same time, you can't practicably get down more than a 1:4 spread in that type of a game so at a TC of -10, instead of being absent or betting 1/20th of your max bet like you would in a shoe game, you've got 1/4 of a max bet out there, so using a play like hitting 15 vs. 3 is going to have some value.

You're also getting to use the extreme index plays on the high end. There are powerful indices for splitting 10's vs. 2 through 7.

Okay. So then Halves would outpeform Zen on shallow 1-2 single deck, and Zen would outperform Halves backcounting a deep penetration shoe game?

Are there any sims comparing the relative performance of counts in regular shoe games and games with departure?

I tend to agree with our simian friend... Qfit has some graphs I believe.

A Trick Question?

Since they are both higher level counts they will have similar results. :joker::whip:

Most players should probably stick with the count they are currently using.

Getting picky?

Wonging with a large spread in shoe games is where the counts with a high betting correlation BC will shine.:joker::whip:
Playing fewer hands

Play all in hand held with minimal spread is where the counts with a high playing efficiency PE will shine.:joker::whip:
Playing more hands