Zen Count Vs. Hi-Opt II (No Ace Side-Count)
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
yes, How about laying to rest the zen, HO2 debate with some charts? also, which zen count are people using here? I just did a quick comparison on CVCX and zen original full indices DID NOT BEAT HO2, no ASC. I used 6D s17 DAS RSA LS 1.5 deck pen.
Aha, I just read ICNT's post about LS effect on the systems. makes sense now.
Aha, I just read ICNT's post about LS effect on the systems. makes sense now.
Last edited:
creeping panther said:
DC,
Nice to see you posting,,,hope all is well,,,keep in touch.
Friend,
CP
Nice to see you posting,,,hope all is well,,,keep in touch.
Friend,
CP
I also love the chart from iCountNTrack. Honestly, what more could people want? Zen outperforms in the conditions in the opening post, sometimes Hi Opt II will as shown by ICountNTrack. Find your conditions, your game, your skills, and choose accordingly.
Last edited:
You did to that sim what Siegfried does to Roy. You've got a S17 LS game, 6/1 pen, and a 1-20 spread with a Wongout and you get a SCORE only around 63??? That's the kind of game that's so good you wouldn't even risk a 1-20 spread.
Under those conditions I get a SCORE of 120.46 for High-Low and 120.06 for HO2 with no sidecount. Being the difference is down in the noise I'll go as far as to say that for this sim the two counts are equal. But it's still not a very realistic situation. You have a player who switches to a level 2 count and learns full indices, but can't bother himself to do an ace-density sidecount?
You've got a S17 LS game, 6/1 pen, and a 1-20 spread with a Wongout and you get a SCORE only around 63??? That's the kind of game that's so good you wouldn't even risk a 1-20 spread.Under those conditions I get a SCORE of 120.46 for High-Low and 120.06 for HO2 with no sidecount. Being the difference is down in the noise I'll go as far as to say that for this sim the two counts are equal. But it's still not a very realistic situation. You have a player who switches to a level 2 count and learns full indices, but can't bother himself to do an ace-density sidecount?
Automatic Monkey said:
You did to that sim what Siegfried does to Roy. You've got a S17 LS game, 6/1 pen, and a 1-20 spread with a Wongout and you get a SCORE only around 63??? That's the kind of game that's so good you wouldn't even risk a 1-20 spread.
Under those conditions I get a SCORE of 120.46 for High-Low and 120.06 for HO2 with no sidecount. Being the difference is down in the noise I'll go as far as to say that for this sim the two counts are equal. But it's still not a very realistic situation. You have a player who switches to a level 2 count and learns full indices, but can't bother himself to do an ace-density sidecount?
You've got a S17 LS game, 6/1 pen, and a 1-20 spread with a Wongout and you get a SCORE only around 63??? That's the kind of game that's so good you wouldn't even risk a 1-20 spread.Under those conditions I get a SCORE of 120.46 for High-Low and 120.06 for HO2 with no sidecount. Being the difference is down in the noise I'll go as far as to say that for this sim the two counts are equal. But it's still not a very realistic situation. You have a player who switches to a level 2 count and learns full indices, but can't bother himself to do an ace-density sidecount?
My sim had the following parameters:
Hi-Lo (Full Indices)
Full-Deck Resolution
Rounded TC (this means the player will actually be wonging out at TC <= -1.51)
The betting schedule was:
TC <= 1: 1
TC = 2: 2
TC = 3: 5
TC = 4: 8
TC = 5: 11
TC = 6: 14
TC = 7: 17
TC = 8: 20
The Rules were:
6D, S17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, SP to 4, .75 Pen, DAS, DOA2, LS, 1 Card to split aces, face-up, 2 players.
Results:
(1 Billion Hands)
TBA = +1.770% (absolutely huge)
but the SCORE is still only = 54.15
Let's see what happens if we let it wongout at TC = -1 (this time I will use a truncated (instead of rounded) True count so that it will not wong at TC = -.51, for example).
Results:
(1 Billion Hands)
TBA = +1.919% (astronomically huge)
but the SCORE is still only = 43.03
Very f****** strange. The TBA gets larger, but the SCORE gets lower. Perhaps, I'll have to learn how SCORE is calculated, for it is clearly not in direct proportion to TBA. My guess is that SCORE takes into account how many hands you are getting in per hour, which will obviously be less when wonging out at TC = -1.
SP
Hi-Lo (Full Indices)
Full-Deck Resolution
Rounded TC (this means the player will actually be wonging out at TC <= -1.51)
The betting schedule was:
TC <= 1: 1
TC = 2: 2
TC = 3: 5
TC = 4: 8
TC = 5: 11
TC = 6: 14
TC = 7: 17
TC = 8: 20
The Rules were:
6D, S17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, SP to 4, .75 Pen, DAS, DOA2, LS, 1 Card to split aces, face-up, 2 players.
Results:
(1 Billion Hands)
TBA = +1.770% (absolutely huge)
but the SCORE is still only = 54.15
Let's see what happens if we let it wongout at TC = -1 (this time I will use a truncated (instead of rounded) True count so that it will not wong at TC = -.51, for example).
Results:
(1 Billion Hands)
TBA = +1.919% (astronomically huge)
but the SCORE is still only = 43.03
Very f****** strange. The TBA gets larger, but the SCORE gets lower. Perhaps, I'll have to learn how SCORE is calculated, for it is clearly not in direct proportion to TBA. My guess is that SCORE takes into account how many hands you are getting in per hour, which will obviously be less when wonging out at TC = -1.
SP