Help with Ace Side-Count for Hi Opt II
- Thread starter KounterStrike
- Start date
Sorry, can't go along with this one. Long ago I was disturbed by the "over-precision" of simulators. That is why CVData includes the ability to sim errors and increase unpredictability. Playing errors, betting errors, cover betting, shuffle-tracking errors, incorrect TC calculations, shuffle sloppiness, variations in number of players, varying penetration, using incorrect strategies for the rules, etc. Some of these make a dramatic difference (e.g. ST errors and cover betting.) Most actually make less of a difference than would be expected and have been exaggerated in the books. I'm guilty of this exaggeration myself in efforts to push the importance of precision play. This isn't tournament play or no limit Poker where one error wipes you out.
I am not a fan of side counts. Particularly in shoes. But with practice, they will improve your game and deck estimation fuzziness isn't that large a factor.
I am not a fan of side counts. Particularly in shoes. But with practice, they will improve your game and deck estimation fuzziness isn't that large a factor.
1/4D is the density. You could sim errors in estimating 1/4Ds used. But if you are estimating decks by 1/2D or 1D, you shouldn't be side counting Aces for betting purposes. That's one of the reasons people rarely side count in shoes. Another reason is there are a lot more aces to count. I side-counted aces for playing purposes using Revere Point Count in shoe games for a brief period. I hated it.
I am saying that estimation fuzziness IS a factor that degenerates
the value of the HO2 where relates only to the Ace density overlay.
That said, I stand on record as telling people that because of the above
HO2 w/ standard side-count methodology will only glean the equivalent
of what ZEN provides while working harder, for most practitioners.
Don't go against me in open forum on this, QFIT, I'll lose all my credibility! zg
the value of the HO2 where relates only to the Ace density overlay.
That said, I stand on record as telling people that because of the above
HO2 w/ standard side-count methodology will only glean the equivalent
of what ZEN provides while working harder, for most practitioners.
Don't go against me in open forum on this, QFIT, I'll lose all my credibility! zg
It is good to be objective Zengrifter, and that is what QFIT is being here not like other people who claim their system came down from heaven and it is the best and it is infallible (clear throat, QFIT knows whom I am talking about !!!).
The TRUTH
HO2/ASC outperforms ZEN for both shoe and pitch games in an ideal world (great accuracy and precision). Using HO2/ASC in shoe games is much more difficult (more Aces, 1/4D resolution harder to obtain). But my opinion HO2/ASC for pitch games is very doable for pitch games for a large number of players.
But there is no question that ZEN is easier and one of the best systems for both pitch and shoes.
The TRUTH
HO2/ASC outperforms ZEN for both shoe and pitch games in an ideal world (great accuracy and precision). Using HO2/ASC in shoe games is much more difficult (more Aces, 1/4D resolution harder to obtain). But my opinion HO2/ASC for pitch games is very doable for pitch games for a large number of players.
But there is no question that ZEN is easier and one of the best systems for both pitch and shoes.
. For the record tho, theres 164 cards(3D,8cards)