I have been using Hi-LO for about 2 years, but I want to switch to Hi-Opt II with ace side-count. I need some help with the ace side-count for betting purposes, i tried to look it up online not much info. Can anyone give me an example please of how to adjust the count with the ace-side count. Thanks
Help with Ace Side-Count for Hi Opt II
- Thread starter KounterStrike
- Start date
There is a very good description as well as some training methods in Uston's Million Dollar Blackjack. In general you compare your side count of aces with the aces that should have been played and add or subtract 2 from your Running Count for every ace in excess or deficit.
A small example, your running count (from your main count 2-10) is +12 and your ace side count is 3. There was a half deck played of a double deck game. Usually you should have seen 2 aces but you have already seen 3, that means you are one ace short. You now need to subtract 2 from your running count of +12 to get 10. Your betting TC is now +10/1.5=6.7 (floor to 6).
You must now revert back to your main count of +12 for playing the next round.
Note: You can also improve your Insurance correlation with the side count. I can give you more details about it if you want.
A small example, your running count (from your main count 2-10) is +12 and your ace side count is 3. There was a half deck played of a double deck game. Usually you should have seen 2 aces but you have already seen 3, that means you are one ace short. You now need to subtract 2 from your running count of +12 to get 10. Your betting TC is now +10/1.5=6.7 (floor to 6).
You must now revert back to your main count of +12 for playing the next round.
Note: You can also improve your Insurance correlation with the side count. I can give you more details about it if you want.
Last edited:
Thanks for the help, so basically the adjustment x is (# of aces expected - # aces counted) x 2, so T.C for betting = (RC+x)/(# of remaining decks). Also the number of Aces expected is always calculated within half deck slug right??.
Yes, can you please tell me how to improve the Insurance correlation with the side-count, hi-opt II already has an excellent IC of 0.91
Yes, can you please tell me how to improve the Insurance correlation with the side-count, hi-opt II already has an excellent IC of 0.91
I am actually pretty efficient with side-counting the aces, but basically what you need to do is have a quarter deck estimation in the discard tray because you expectation is for quarter decks played, so for instance if 1.75 are in the discard tray that is 7 quarters decks, meaning the number of aces expected is 7, so let's you side counted 5 aces and the RC count is 10, so your
T.C for betting = [(10)+(7-5)x2] / 4 (assuming a 6D shoe) = 14/4= 3.5, right?
The harder part is the quarter deck estimation of the discard tray.
Also does anybody know how to set-up this side count adjustment for betting on CVBJ.
Thanks
T.C for betting = [(10)+(7-5)x2] / 4 (assuming a 6D shoe) = 14/4= 3.5, right?
The harder part is the quarter deck estimation of the discard tray.
Also does anybody know how to set-up this side count adjustment for betting on CVBJ.
Thanks
Last edited:
Yes, your formula is correct. It depends to which degree you estimate the number of remaining decks (full, half or quarter deck).
You are right an IC of 0.91 is excellent but you can raise it to almost 0.93. All you have to do is to add your SC of aces to the Running Count of the main count. This method was developed by a poster named Dancer, who posted this technique some years ago over at the board at advantageplayer.com.
(Dead link: http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=6479)
This way for Single Deck you would take insurance at when RC+SC>=+5.
For DD @>=+9, for 4D@>=18 and for 6D>=+26. You don't need to calculate the TC, just add both counts together.
The indices were calculated with CVData, they differ a little bit from his numbers.
Another way to improve your insurance correlation would be to use the Victor Insurance parameter where you divide your RC/Aces remaining and take insurance when your result equals or exceeds 1.17 for Hi-Opt II.
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/victorinsuranceoriginal.htm
I believe the V.I.P. is a bit more accurate but I found no way to sim it with CVData.
**Edit:typos in the spreadsheet
You are right an IC of 0.91 is excellent but you can raise it to almost 0.93. All you have to do is to add your SC of aces to the Running Count of the main count. This method was developed by a poster named Dancer, who posted this technique some years ago over at the board at advantageplayer.com.
(Dead link: http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=6479)
This way for Single Deck you would take insurance at when RC+SC>=+5.
For DD @>=+9, for 4D@>=18 and for 6D>=+26. You don't need to calculate the TC, just add both counts together.
The indices were calculated with CVData, they differ a little bit from his numbers.
Another way to improve your insurance correlation would be to use the Victor Insurance parameter where you divide your RC/Aces remaining and take insurance when your result equals or exceeds 1.17 for Hi-Opt II.
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/victorinsuranceoriginal.htm
I believe the V.I.P. is a bit more accurate but I found no way to sim it with CVData.
**Edit:typos in the spreadsheet
Last edited:
Right, assumming a 6deck shoe. Ya, 1/4 deck estimation is easy enough for 1 and 2 decks, but starts getting tougher as the number of decks, pile up in the discard tray.
I hope your were just making an example with 6D shoe, and dont really plan on doing it..lol
I actually use 1/2 deck increments to help guide me on this?
I hope your were just making an example with 6D shoe, and dont really plan on doing it..lol
I actually use 1/2 deck increments to help guide me on this?
Thanks very much for the helpful info NightSpirit. i guess i should start working on improving my discard tray estimation to a quarter, see the problem is that I mostly play shoe games (6 decks), it is not so evident to estimate to a quarter deck, for instance if you have 3 decks or 3.25 decks, the problem is that you have to estimate as a one chunk and not in separate chunks: for instance you assume let's say your estimate for one deck is ± 4 cards, so if you are estimating 3 decks as the sum of 3 one decks so making 3 estimates, the errors would add, so it would be 3 decks ±) 12 cards. But if you make a 3D estimate as one chunk with one estimate the error would be smaller.
Last edited:
That is actually not true, HO2 with ace SC fairs a little better than the original 1980 Zen
HO2 with an ace SC is one of the very best counting systems, i do agree with the quarter deck estimation needed for the betting SC adjustment being a bit challenging, i am not sure how it would fair with half or full deck estimation.
HO2 with an ace SC is one of the very best counting systems, i do agree with the quarter deck estimation needed for the betting SC adjustment being a bit challenging, i am not sure how it would fair with half or full deck estimation.
Last edited:
If simulations do not offer an accurate guidance on this issue, then what does? You seem to be very fond of Zen, which is really a great system, and easier than HO2 with an ace SC, however it does not by any mean outperform HO2 with Ace SC especially the deeper the penetration(HO2 SCORE is 15% higher at about 90% penetration for 6D)
1/4D ace-density estimation doesn't cut the mustard. To get the full gain shown in the sim one needs to use a secondary count od 2,5 +1 vs A -1. Obviously the necessary secondary count is impractical. The 1/4D estimation density approach will ONLY get you what ZEN provides in gain, and you work harder for it.
The above is what makes the sims deceptive. zg
The above is what makes the sims deceptive. zg
