checkmugged
Active Member
I did some quick google searching and also searched past threads but haven't come up with much. Assuming I'm playing a 2D H17 DAS game, is either count 'better'? If so, why?
Checkmugged
Checkmugged
AO2 v. Zen
- Thread starter checkmugged
- Start date
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
OH No
checkmugged
Active Member
Well if this is a sort of taboo subject I can claim ignorance - it didn't appear to be from other threads. I am well versed in the AO2 and from what I can tell the Zen count simply swaps out the -1 count from the 9 to the ace. I will not buy another book to read it and find out for myself it that's the suggestion unless someone can enlighten me why it would be worth my while, then I'd have np getting it. I can easily keep the ace side count in the AO2 so I'm doubting that changing from AO2 to any of the Zen counts would be worth it but if proved wrong, I'd change in a heartbeat.
Checkmugged
Checkmugged
if you play primarily pitch, id say stick with AO2, but that's just me as i used to use it and could really feel the "vroom" under the hood on that bad boy. ZG and others have mentioned that the ace side count with quarter deck estimation is obsolete and that you must use a secondary combination count. but i've never seen anything prove that just using the ace side count is obsolete (i'd gladly welcome seeing something that proves this, beyond just a statement that "it is obsolete", as it would save me time for the 2-3 times a year i do get to play pitch these days). since i now play shoes 95% of the time i ended up switching to zen so i wouldnt have to side count 24+ aces.checkmugged said:
good news is whichever you decide to use, the indices are interchangeable for the most part.
EDIT: whether or not you choose to switch to Zen count, i'd highly recommend the book that introduced it - blackbelt in blackjack by snyder. one of my favorites and gave me several of the practice routines i use daily. also has intro to shuffle tracking techniques.
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
Keep your indices, swap the A and 9 tag values, work smarter not harder, get the same result.
Ace-neutral side-count systems are obsolete - those words came from the sainted Kenny Uston over 20-years ago, and he was correct. zg
Ace-neutral side-count systems are obsolete - those words came from the sainted Kenny Uston over 20-years ago, and he was correct. zg
do you just mean it's "obsolete" because zen count gets same EV results as ace side-counted AOII? if that's what you mean then i disagree, as AO2 WILL yield higher EV on pitch games and shoe games if done well, however minute or insignificant you may deem that extra advantage. and in my world, if one system gains any bit of an advantage (however much extra work it takes to get it) over another system it is not "obsolete".zengrifter said:
obviously i agree with you and kenny and do not think the amount of work required is WORTH IT for shoe games (i use zen after all), but if someone can handle it in pitch games, why not?
don't get me wrong, i loved kenny's approach to the game, i just dont understand how he could say ao2 is "obsolete". side note - do you also think hi-optII is obsolete?
checkmugged
Active Member
If they're only obselete because someone thinks I'm working harder than it's far from obselete for me. I have no issues keeping the ace sidecount in 2 deck games, it's not work, it's automatic at this point, which means if I switched it'd be work changing the value of the regular count. If there's no added EV then I'll stick with AO2.zengrifter said:
Checkmugged
Automatic Monkey
Banned
There's no statistically significant advantage to either. AO2 will provide slightly better SCORE if used properly with the Ace sidecount. Hi-Opt II might be a better choice still, if you are willing to sidecount.checkmugged said:
Our definition of obsolete must be different becuase I don't understand how systems that keep side counts are worthless. If a system is easy to learn and you win money consistently and the only difference is an Ace side count, I find that being far from obsolete. Keeping a side count for 1 or 2 or even 3 cards is not that hard if you have the will to learn. I'm not trying to call anyone out or challenge anyone on this because I know each systems has its pros and cons. But just saying something is "obsolete" because a man 20 years ago said so, (no disrespect in the slightest to THE Kenny Uston) that doesn't validate or prove to me that a system is worthless. I am honestly intrested in seeing some charts, graphs, or books that prove this obsolete thing I keep hearing. I am a big fan of the Hi-OPT systems for use in SD and 2D games, I want to know how I am winning hundreds of dollars consistently, easily, and having fun doing it with an obsolete system.
zengrifter
Banned
My answer is known here, but I'll repeat for some of the newcommers - UNLESS you use proficiently a secondary count consisting of A-2 vs 2&5+1, or similar, you will not realize the extra theoretical gain that AO2 portends. Ace density estimate per 1/4D as proposed by Humble and Carlson and Uston and Revere will NOT cut it. SO you wind up working harder to get the same gain as ZEN w/o Ace side-count. AND if your Ace 1/4 deck density estimate is not up to speed you won't even get your ZEN's worth.rukus said:
If you disagree with me on this you are disagreeing with Arnold Snyder, and especially with Ken Uston, who had a serious vested interest in Ace side-count systems.
Now IF you only play 1-2D and you must side count a single card, use a modified ZEN (ie, 12222000-2-1) with a side count of 7s with bivaluate departure matrices.
Oh, and by obsolete, perhaps I should say instead 'antiquated'.
Lastly, AO2 is further antiquated by virtue of the inclusion of the 9-1, which is overall detrimental and offsets at least part of the theoretical gain from the neutralized Ace. And which is why HO2 is stronger than AO2. So there is a two part improvement by swapping the A-9 tags in AO2. The good news is that you can keep your AO2 indices. zg
Last edited:
Thank you Zen, that was well said. I have a question on the subject on HO2 and Zen with 7s side count like you said earlier in pitch games. Taking ease of use with MP tables and indices and all the other advanced bells and whistles, which would you consider or tell others to use?
this is exactly what i was looking for. thank you for this. and yes, i agree, "antiquated" is a better term to use. i think obsolete offends too many people, and we wouldnt want to hurt any feelings, would we? :cry:zengrifter said:
anyway, last question - is there a published study that compares the secondary count vs ace side count w/ 1/4 density? im always interested in reading stuff like this and it would finally settle this debate for me personally.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Unbalanced Zen. You can true count it if you wish, or use it in running count mode.Count said:
zengrifter
Banned
Neither 1/4D nor 1/2D - use either 1D-based TC or 2D-based TC conversion (the confusion around this will trigger more discussion)Count said:
BBIBJ does NOT offer UBZEN. zg
zengrifter
Banned
I can't remember anyone doing multiparameter sidecountrukus said:
w/UB'd count, need to think it through. zg
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
The True BJ systen:
(2334320-1-4)(A-4vsX+1)
BC.997
Pe.68
IC.93
The secondary can also be used (multi-param)to enhance pe to .7 to .8
Multi-params can be obtained through kc's cdca program.
(2334320-1-4)(A-4vsX+1)
BC.997
Pe.68
IC.93
The secondary can also be used (multi-param)to enhance pe to .7 to .8
Multi-params can be obtained through kc's cdca program.
Last edited:
im away this week and don't have access to my CVData, but maybe when i get back i will take a look into this to see if it's possible torun this comparison sims. I've never done multi-param tables in CVData and can't remember off top of my head - do you (or QFIT or anyone else) know if it's possible to set up multi-param counts in CVData?zengrifter said: