Is Flash Brain Washing Everyone Over Hi-Opt II

[Midwest Player]

Over at Norm's site there was a post asking what count system you used. I was surprised so many folks were using Hi-Opt II for double deck. I know this is a powerful count, but can the average person master it. It seems if you don't use at least a level 2 over there you are a dumb ass.

Can somebody explain how Hi-Opt II works. I know you need a side count for Aces, but is this difficult. I play mostly double deck so what would be the most practical count for double deck? By the way is AO-II more powerful than Hi-Opt II for double deck.

 

[KewlJ]

Oh good...a count discussion. Short answer: Yes. But I will expand (and try to stay within my boundaries)

While I won't say "brainwashing", in my opinion Flash and Three have far more influence than they should over other players, especially newer players in choosing a count. Norm's site in general has a disproportionately higher density of proponents of higher level counts than the blackjack community in general, and that includes what I call professional and/or serious level players. The fact is that the vast majority of serious/professional players play a relatively simple count, most hi-lo, or similar level one count or a level 2 count like RPC, or Zen with no side counts.

But on Norm's site, to hear these very outspoken and frequent posters tell it, anyone who doesn't play a level 2 count (or higher) with numerous side counts, or worse some sort of custom columns count, are talked down to, and told they can't make any money and as you rightfully described, made to feel stupid.

Flash has frequently said things like hi-lo is a weak count and/or no professional players play a level one count. Both of which are just flat out nonsense. Most professional players play a level one count. While Norm occasionally will say something about one of these flat out wrong and misleading statements by Flash, the fact is that there are not many "simplicity" proponents left at BJTF, so most of these statements go unchallenged, giving these members far more influence than they should have.

Now, if a player really only plays single or double deck blackjack, that might be a rare situation to consider a higher level count. But, I have to wonder where all these members at BJTF, spread out all over the country and Canada are playing all this single and double deck blackjack? There is very limited single/double deck games in most areas of the country. And as time goes on there will likely be even less.

 

[Splittingten's]

When I play Double deck it's instinctual for me to take note of the Aces being dealt, not to necessarily take that information and apply it to a counting system.
Here's how I would typically use the information of the Aces dealt in a DD game:
Lets say i'm heads up with the dealer and the TC is +1 but I saw 2 Aces leave the deck, I wouldn't raise my bet until it looks like 26 cards have been dealt to off set those 2 aces being dealt. On the other hand, when the count is +1 and there 1.25 decks left of 1.5 decks left and there hasn't been any Aces dealt then I will increase my bet to what I would of a true count of +2.
I basically keep track of the Aces dealt in relation to every 1/4th deck having been dealt and try to use that information to make slightly better decisions as to weather or not to raise or lower my bet slightly more in relation tot he true count using my Hi-lo system.
Let me use a more extreme example. If i'm playing a single deck game and the true count is +4 but there's no Aces left in the deck i'm not going to raise my bet.
Conversely, if the true count is +3 but if no Ace has been dealt and we're half way through the deck then i'm going to bet more like it's a true count of +4.
The same concept applies to a double deck game except the power of the system is diluted.
Most of the time I don't even use my innovative? Aces side count unless the scenario is extreme and I know I can take advantage of the information. Unless that's the case I try to just stick to the tried and true Hi-lo.

 

[BoSox]

But on Norm's site, to hear these very outspoken and frequent posters tell it, anyone who doesn't play a level 2 count (or higher) with numerous side counts, or worse some sort of custom columns count, are talked down to, and told they can't make any money and as you rightfully described, made to feel stupid.

This is not a count debate at all but having the right "freedom of speech" to express your opinion. Only one member indirectly talks me down, and is losing all credibility real fast for other reasons. Suddenly, you and he are on friendly speaking terms, good, I hope it works out well for both of you. I know you feel the need to give back since you were helped when you started out, I have some of the same ideas, but I have come to realize that the new guys/gals are going to have to figure it out for themselves, as the count debate will always exist. As far as being told they can't make money, and made to feel stupid, I do not take those words serious as I am anything but insecure in my game, and I do not feel I have to argue the points.

Flash has frequently said things like hi-lo is a weak count and/or no professional players play a level one count. Both of which are just flat out nonsense. Most professional players play a level one count. While Norm occasionally will say something about one of these flat out wrong and misleading statements by Flash, the fact is that there are not many "simplicity" proponents left at BJTF, so most of these statements go unchallenged, giving these members far more influence than they should have.

Why the need to challenge free speech? I used to write about all the extra time and effort I spent on scouting to the extreme to improve my chances of winning, why bother trying to prove it. I am a part time player who has done well for over three decades, using the Hi Low count successfully and I would rather enjoy it, than explain it.

 

[DSchles]

"Let me use a more extreme example. If I'm playing a single deck game and the true count is +4 but there's no Aces left in the deck I'm not going to raise my bet.

That would be an egregious mistake. At that point, you probably have about a 2% advantage, if not more.

First of all, if you're using Hi-Lo, you're already counting the ace for betting purposes. So, why would you make any adjustment at all for excess or deficit aces, for the purpose of betting? You don't understand what you're doing. You would be MUCH better served using the ace side count for making a more accurate insurance decision or for more information for doubling hands like hard 10 or 11. But what you've described makes no sense and is certainly hurting your game.

Don

 

[Splittingten's]

Thanks a lot for the feed back Don, I'm glad you took the time to respond. I never actually used the strategy in a live casino. It has always been more of an idea when i'm dealing single and double deck games to myself. I will stop taking note of the Aces now unless i'm playing a side count for Aces.

 

[KewlJ]

This is not a count debate at all but having the right "freedom of speech" to express your opinion. Only one member indirectly talks me down, and is losing all credibility real fast for other reasons. Suddenly, you and he are on friendly speaking terms, good, I hope it works out well for both of you.

I am all for "freedom of speech". I have no problem with proponents of this or that, expressing their support for what they play and backing that up with the reasons they think or find such a count beneficial. I don't like when they incorporate some reasoning that is just untrue, like describing hi-lo as a weak count that no serious player plays. I think someone should push back on that kind of complete BS every time it is said, because it is just wrong and subsequently misleading. It seems odd that most of the members that would push back just happen to be among the members that were banned and no loner there? lol

As for my being on friendly speaking terms with Moses. You must have done some reading of the so called 'hate site'. lol However perhaps you missed a post just about a week ago when I discussed my problems with that person. 1) being that he plays single deck in an era when almost no one else has access to reasonable single deck, almost any comment and advice he makes should come with a disclaimer, that his advice may not be the best advice for anyone else. 2.) I also could do without all the sports analogies involving a coach from his days as a youth. 3.) I still have issue with a comment made on another site a couple years ago from him, that I regard as a personal, physical threat. (he claims not to remember).

In addition, he made a rather bizarre comment claiming some other poster at BJTF was actually you and I informed him that was 100% incorrect! So, yes, I have had conversations with Moses, but I wouldn't categorize us as "buddies". I am trying to take a page from Don's book, and take the high road and still have productive conversations with people that I may have disagreements or issues with.

 

[BoSox]

It seems odd that most of the members that would push back just happen to be among the members that were banned and no loner there? lol

For the record not all the arguments that took place, were centered only on the count debate and and only on one site. On BJ 21 infrequently your name would came up by only one person, which would turn into heated discussions, that you more than likely do not know about.

I am trying to take a page from Don's book, and take the high road and still have productive conversations with people that I may have disagreements or issues with.

Now I am going to express my own free speech. I know about the ongoing continuous feud taking place, only because someone brings it to a board that I happen to participate in, where it does not belong, and now I stay out of it because I already have given my strong opinion enough times. Personally, I may know little of the entire picture, all I know is that you have always been straight by me, and I always wished you the best, including now.

 

[BoSox]

Over at Norm's site there was a post asking what count system you used.

Midwest Player, it was your post that asked the question, are you having some inside fun?

 

[xengrifter]

You must have done some reading of the so called 'hate site'.

I prefer 'HateZone.'

 

[BoSox]

Zengrifter, I like the quote you wrote, and I will respond with a poor attempt at the next line, even though I realize it does not need one.

" "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on." "

No choice but to follow its wheel tracks, as the hypnotic effect took hold,
totally immersed in the eyes of the gypsy woman.

 

[Ed Teller]

Over at Norm's site there was a post asking what count system you used. I was surprised so many folks were using Hi-Opt II for double deck. I know this is a powerful count, but can the average person master it. It seems if you don't use at least a level 2 over there you are a dumb ass.

Can somebody explain how Hi-Opt II works. I know you need a side count for Aces, but is this difficult. I play mostly double deck so what would be the most practical count for double deck? By the way is AO-II more powerful than Hi-Opt II for double deck.

First of all, the "one size fits all" scenario does not work for me. Balanced counts are easier to both learn and use then the multilevel counts with various side counts. Generally, the complex counts perform better in a specific environment but are more error prone.

I can say this after conducting "certification test" on a number of players using both types of counts and there is clearly a difference in ease of use. This shows up the most when you move a multi level counter to a shoe game. My experience is that the frequency of losing the counts is much higher. Since we have no way to prove this, one way or the other, then I rely on my anecdotal observations, experience and intuition.

I would counsel "professional" players to have both counts so that you are able to attack pitch and shoe games with vigor. I counsel new players to learn the level 1 count first and as you progress, then consider adding the multi level count.

 

[Dummy]

Over at Norm's site there was a post asking what count system you used. I was surprised so many folks were using Hi-Opt II for double deck. I know this is a powerful count, but can the average person master it. It seems if you don't use at least a level 2 over there you are a dumb ass.

Can somebody explain how Hi-Opt II works. I know you need a side count for Aces, but is this difficult. I play mostly double deck so what would be the most practical count for double deck? By the way is AO-II more powerful than Hi-Opt II for double deck.

Of course Hiopt2/ASC is easily mastered. It is just harder to master than simpler approaches. If you are weak minded or lazy you might think it is hard to master, but with enough practice it is easily mastered. It will just take more pr active than for simpler counts. It is level 2 and keeps at least one side count. Level 2 shouldn't take much longer to master but side counting is an additional skill. Everyone can master it but it is a matter of time to do so. How much time depends on the individual. Some master side counting very quickly while others struggle with mastering it for a longer period of time. But, unless you have brain damage, you can master it with enough practice.

On a computer Hiopt2/ASC wins almost all count comparisons for all conditions. Often it doesn't beat equally complicated counts by much and when it loses it isn't by much. It beats simple counts by quite a bit like it should. The issue is we are not computers so we shouldn't expect our results to be the same as sim results. Many can execute a complicated count as well as a simple count but many others will see a bigger fall off from the sim results using a complicated approach versus a simple approach.

There are a few reasons why Hiopt2 works a lot better for pitch games than other counts.

First it assesses advantage much more accurately than these other counts. The advantage estimate has a far tighter range of advantage around it for each TC which reduces variance and allows for bigger bets at the same advantage with the same RoR.

Second it is an ace neutral count which adds a lot the PE. PE becomes more important relative to BC when either of two things happen. One is when you use fewer decks because the impact of removing one card is higher and BJ play most of the time is resolved by revealing more than one card. Not much of the time does the player stand and the dealer just flip his hole card without taking another card. When that does happen results are not different for different pen. When someone takes a hit, more than one card is revealed and the effect of the removal of the first card has a more significant change on the odds of the second card draw with fewer cards unseen.

Third the importance of PE relative to BC is linked to spread. If you spread the same at DD as you do with shoe play the effect of bet spread on PE importance doesn't play into pitch games. But almost alway you spread about half or less in pitch games than you do in shoe games. That basically doubles the value of PE relative to BC without even figuring the second reason in the preceding paragraph.

These are the basics. If further interested more detail can be provided but I trust you can take it from there.

 

[Ed Teller]

Of course Hiopt2/ASC is easily mastered.

Not the experience of the players I have known and tested.

On a computer Hiopt2/ASC wins almost all count comparisons for all conditions.

I concur. It is a stronger count when played like a computer. However, computers are not making the plays. Does not take many errors at TC+3 or above to negate all of its advantage.

 

[Dummy]

I concur. It is a stronger count when played like a computer. However, computers are not making the plays. Does not take many errors at TC+3 or above to negate all of its advantage.

If you are training people to use Hiopt2 and they are making errors then they didn't train long enough. Playing when you are not ready will cost no matter what count you use. My experience is errors are an individual thing. If a player is making errors using Hiopt2 he is probably making errors using whatever other count he uses. If the player waits until he can play error free and continues to stay sharp the don't make errors. Some people either are too lazy to put in the necessary preparation or just don't have the patience to wait until they can perform their count flawlessly before playing. Of course these people will make mistakes. It is expected. You need to recruit more motivated individuals or not press them to play before they are ready.

 

[Ed Teller]

If a player is making errors using Hiopt2 he is probably making errors using whatever other count he uses. I

You would be wrong.

I have heard all of these "didn't work hard enough" comments and they do not hold up.

Do not misunderstand, if I am a full time lone wolf pro then multi-level counts will be my weapon of choice.

 

[Dummy]

Do not misunderstand, if I am a full time lone wolf pro then multi-level counts will be my weapon of choice.

Smart man.

 

[xengrifter]

I would counsel "professional" players to have both counts so that you are able to attack pitch and shoe games with vigor. I counsel new players to learn the level 1 count first and as you progress, then consider adding the multi level count.

Holy Toledo, herr professor!

 

[KewlJ]

Ok, since someone bumped this thread, I just happen to have a couple thoughts about recent revelations concerning 'Flash'. I feel bad because I know Flash is in declining health, mentally as well as physically, but I believe the record needs to be set straight.

The issue was not whether there is any benefit of using Hi-opt2, vs a level 1 count. That is completely dependent on the individual. What is at issue is Flash has spent many years making false statements that have mislead players, particularly newer players. Statements such as "no one can win playing a level one count", "no professional players play a level one count" and so on and so forth. It is one thing to be a proponent of something and say in my opinion such and such is beneficial, it is another to make completely false and misleading statements to support your "opinion".

Flash complicated this by falsifying his own history to add credibility to his "opinions". How many times have you heard Flash refer to himself as a "20+ year professional player?" At some point in the last 6 months Flash revealed he has averaged 30k a year as a blackjack AP. I suppose if one were to live off of 30K a year that would make him/her a professional player. I myself lived off very small earnings my first years of low level play. But that simply is not the picture that Flash was painting. He frequently referred to himself as an expert, and top notch professional player. And that is not what he was and 30k a year just confirms that. Flash NEVER lived off his blackjack earnings. Blackjack was more a second part-time thing while he was retired, had retirement income and a wife still employed. His frequent referrals to himself as a 20+ year professional player was not accurate, but more important, it was intentionally misleading to build credibility to his "opinions", that he frequently stated as fact, including claims about Hi-opt2.

Nothing wrong with earning 30k a year as a part-time income, but it simply does NOT make one an expert, professional player.

 

[KewlJ]

Now for the rest of the recent discussion:

1.) The game is simply not played on a computer. It is played on the felt inside a casino. Computer simulations and software are a tool, nothing more.

2.) one of the great problems with the "count debate" is that proponents simply refuse to acknowledge a higher error rate associated with higher level counts. It is a scientific fact that any more complex task is associated with a higher error rate. This cannot be "wished" away, or dismissed by false claims of practice makes perfect. That goes against scientific fact. You might as well be denying that the earth isn't flat. Until proponent acknowledge this fact there is no realistic debate or discussion. It is one side living in an unrealistic alternative world.

Now I am not saying that a higher error rate is going to wipe away any benefit. Again that would be dependent on the individual, their abilities. But there can be no legitimate discussion until proven fact of higher error rate is acknowledged.

3.) I consider myself a lone wolf solo type player, although I currently have a blackjack partner (2 man EMFH team). I play a level one count. My partner plays a level one count, which is no surprise since I trained and mentor him. But almost every professional player that I know, have known and networked with play a level one count, most hi-lo.

Maybe if someone has a time machine, and can get us all back to the 1980's, with better games, single double deck games, yeah, I would consider the advantages of a higher level count. Until then with most of us professional players attacking 6 and 8 deck games (most DD games are counter traps or severely hawked by an overly paranoid industry), hi lo or other level 1 count is more than adequate.

And if someone is looking to improve their results, a higher level count is NOT the way to go. That's pennies! I employ a couple techniques, one of which I have discussed several times that improve my results 50-75%, not the 5-10% improvement of a higher count BEFORE you adjust for higher error rate.

Oh and BTW, for those of us that play professionally and mostly play shoe games, when we do play a double deck game, we side count aces and that additional information is just as beneficial as a higher level count for all practical purposed without employing different counts for different games. That is just a recipe for higher error rate. I mean how hard is it to track 8 aces? You should almost do that subconsciously anyway.