# AOII - advantage at each true count?

#### rukus

##### Well-Known Member
does anyone have an approximation for the incremental players edge gained at various advanced omega II true counts? in hi-lo, its estimated to be about 0.5% for every 1 true count (ie at +1, basically even; at +2 you have ~0.5% edge, +3 you have ~1% edge, etc), correct? But what about for AOII? could not find this info in blackjack for blood. thanks!

#### Sonny

##### Well-Known Member
The advantage isn’t linear so you can’t really get an accurate incremental amount. The difference between a +1TC, a +2TC and a +3TC etc. will not be the same amount. The only way to get the advantage at each TC is to run a sim and check the numbers. The 0.5% per TC for HiLo is just an estimation that isn’t very accurate.

If I had to give a number, it would be around 0.3-0.4% per TC depending on the game.

-Sonny-

Last edited:

#### jack.jackson

##### Well-Known Member
In the dark.

rukus said:
does anyone have an approximation for the incremental players edge gained at various advanced omega II true counts? in hi-lo, its estimated to be about 0.5% for every 1 true count (ie at +1, basically even; at +2 you have ~0.5% edge, +3 you have ~1% edge, etc), correct? But what about for AOII? could not find this info in blackjack for blood. thanks!
Dont feel alone if your unclear when exactly to raise your bets in carlsons book. He seems to contradict himself in his book. For example on p.11 he states reno rules(bad rules) -.47 but on p. 89 he states las vegas rules(good rules) re-split x 4, NRSA,DA2,and the dealer may or may not H17.(.01)(-.19)
The contradictory of this statement is, as you can see is that, if were playing in a 6D game with "good rules" were still playing in a -.47 or greater disadvantage game.
So which betting TCs do you go with? The one with good rules(vegas) or the one with bad rules(reno)??

Do you find this to be contradicting as well? To be honest with ya, ive thorouly experimented with both. (not sims)
2D and 6D, in addition, to exepimenting when raising your bets, ive experimented with his betting scheme.

If you have any questions, let me know, and ill try to give you the best advice i can. Good luck.

#### Beast

##### Well-Known Member
Hi,

The most useful thing I found before concerning this question was a booklet of sims covering all games and rules along with penetration. John Auston did this a while back. I looked around on the internet and found a place that still sells the one for A02.... http://www.bjrnet.com/shop/blackjackreports.htm .

Good luck.

Beast

Last edited:

#### zengrifter

##### Banned
rukus said:
does anyone have an approximation for the incremental players edge gained at various advanced omega II true counts? in hi-lo, its estimated to be about 0.5% for every 1 true count (ie at +1, basically even; at +2 you have ~0.5% edge, +3 you have ~1% edge, etc), correct? But what about for AOII? could not find this info in blackjack for blood. thanks!
Based on a 1/2D TC its .55% and for 1D TC its .275% (conservative approximation). zg

#### rukus

##### Well-Known Member
thanks to all of you for the quick replies. instead of using carlson's method for spreading up/down, i was going to try and go with some kelly-adjusted betting schedule and needed estimations of edge at the various counts (though im sure carlson must have used kelly when creating his betting schedules i assume). then after i had this base schedule i could ascertain what cover would do to this base-case schedule. beast, thanks for the heads up on that simulation report, im going to take a look into that, though i suppose i should plop down the money anyways and pick up some good ol simulation software of my own so as not to bother you guys (more than needed :grin: )

#### zengrifter

##### Banned
rukus said:
thanks to all of you for the quick replies. instead of using carlson's method for spreading up/down, i was going to try and go with some kelly-adjusted betting schedule and needed estimations of edge at the various counts (though im sure carlson must have used kelly when creating his betting schedules i assume). then after i had this base schedule i could ascertain what cover would do to this base-case schedule. beast, thanks for the heads up on that simulation report, im going to take a look into that, though i suppose i should plop down the money anyways and pick up some good ol simulation software of my own so as not to bother you guys (more than needed :grin: )
Someone here should provide a AO2 betting schedule for 1-8D.

The problem with Blood is that the betting schedule IS WRONG and ineffective.

The OTHER PROBLEM is that AO2 is OBSOLETE. One very efficient way to remedy the obsolescence of AO2 is to simply switch to ZEN count tags by swapping your 9 and A values. You can simply keep your AO2 strategy indices. zg
tags 2-A
AO2: 112221 0-1-2 0
ZEN: 112221 0 0-2-1

#### rukus

##### Well-Known Member
might i ask why AOII is obsolete? naturally i ask this because i just spent the latter part of 3 weeks practicing multiple hours a day with this count (with ace side count too), and have become fairly proficient at both the main count and adjusted count for betting purposes. is the performance of Zen that much in line with AOII without requiring a sidecount of aces? dont have my BJA with me at the moment but i recall AOII having a higher SCORE than either balanced or unbalanced zen. am i missing something (besides the assumption that go into SCORE calculation)? would love to hear your thoughts, as you guys seem extremely devoted to the Zen counts and i do not know much about them (other than that i am not proficient in Zen while i am procient enough at AOII where i feel comfortable going into a casino as soon as i have my betting schedule ironed out). thoughts? thanks, rukus.

#### Beast

##### Well-Known Member
Hi,

What you have brought up is an interesting question because I also have noticed mention of the A02 and H02 being obsolete. What a revelation since I have been playing the H02 for years with great results. My opinion is that if you can keep the A02 with aces without mistakes and it is comfortable for you then this is the count you need to play. I mean, why waste your talent? Now, a couple of comments about the Zen which seems to be the system of choice at least for this message board. The Zen is a damn good count! That being said it is not the A02 and will not perform like it. I believe the main reason the A02 isn't getting the respect from this board is that most people aren't able to play it comfortably and correctly. So, maybe it is not the count for most people but that doesn't mean you should tell someone who can play it flawlessly for hours at a time they should play the Zen. That just doesn't make sense. Sure, you can argue that the Zen is easier and would produce less mistakes but remember I am talking about someone who can play the A02 flawlessly and make it look easy. These people do exist! I do have a lot of respect for the Zen especially at single deck with the dealer hitting soft 17. It seems to excel at this game, but still underperforming the A02, H02. With the rules changed for S17 it falls back a bit. Of course, then you can argue that if you already have the ace on the side why not use it for playing also. Then, the A02, H02 pull away in any game. Yes, it is a bitch to keep the ace in shoes but it can be done and with time effortlessly.

BTW, I would not recommend the Zen for someone starting out because there is an easier system. So, for all those Zen lovers who argue for simplicity giving this reason that the ace sided counts are obsolete here is my answer.... Play the TKO. It is every bit as strong as the Zen and it is a 1-level count. Yeah, you have to deal with negative starting counts but it is still easier than keeping a 2-level count and you can use the running count in single deck for betting without losing any efficiency.

Good luck.

Beast

Last edited:

#### zengrifter

##### Banned
Beast said:
What you have brought up is an interesting question because I also have noticed mention of the A02 and H02 being obsolete. What a revelation since I have been playing the H02 for years with great results. My opinion is that if you can keep the A02 with aces without mistakes and it is comfortable for you then this is the count you need to play. I mean, why waste your talent? Now, a couple of comments about the Zen which seems to be the system of choice at least for this message board. The Zen is a damn good count! That being said it is not the A02 and will not perform like it.
Actually plenty of threads already discuss the bottomline on this "obsolete" controversey. Suffice to say that I am quoting Uston and Snyder as far back as the mid-80s.

The bottom-line is that AO2 and HO2 will ONLY perform equal to ZEN UNLESS one uses a secondary count for Aces (A = -2 / 2&5 = +1). So since virtually everyone still using these 'obsolete' systems are using the authors' recommended Ace density per 1/4D method, these users are ONLY getting ZEN results while working harder.

Sounds OBSOLETE to me. Remember, I played HO2 for years... untill it became OBSOLETE in the mid-80s. zg

#### Sonny

##### Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Remember, I played HO2 for years... untill it became OBSOLETE in the mid-80s. zg
I also played HO2 for 7 years before switching to Zen. It was one of the best decisions I’ve made. Both HO2 and AO2 are good systems but they require too much effort and have limited applications. For example, they are not practical for shuffle tracking or sequencing.

-Sonny-

#### Beast

##### Well-Known Member
The bottom-line is that AO2 and HO2 will ONLY perform equal to ZEN UNLESS one uses a secondary count for Aces (A = -2 / 2&5 = +1). So since virtually everyone still using these 'obsolete' systems are using the authors' recommended Ace density per 1/4D method, these users are ONLY getting ZEN results while working harder.

This is just wrong. The HO2 and AO2 will outperform the Zen in any game....period. Why do you think the Zen performs equally? Wishful thinking? I already mentioned it does good with H17 rules, but that's the exception and it still underperforms at that game. I guess a few percentage extra win with a lower ROR is even in your book?

Sonny makes a good point that the ace excluded counts would not be good for shuffle tracking.

BTW, zengrifter, I have gotten some info on you. If you don't play by the count because you are so paranoid about heat you will not win....period. So, I guess the most simple count would be best in this situation since you don't efficiently use the info in the first place. I don't mean to sound sour but I know some people that have dealt with you in real life. No wonder you aren't looking for experienced players.

Best,

Beast

Last edited:

#### zengrifter

##### Banned
Beast said:
ZG: The bottom-line is that AO2 and HO2 will ONLY perform equal to ZEN UNLESS one uses a secondary count for Aces (A = -2 / 2&5 = +1). So since virtually everyone still using these 'obsolete' systems are ONLY using the authors' recommended Ace density per 1/4D method, these users are ONLY getting ZEN results while working harder.

This is just wrong. The HO2 and AO2 will outperform the Zen in any game....period. Why do you think the Zen performs equally?
Re-read my statement above carefully, it answers your question. It is the reason that those in the know
proclaimed Ace-neutral counts obsolete in the mid-80s. zg

#### Beast

##### Well-Known Member
Hi zengrifter,

I read your post perfectly and it is just wrong as I said.....go back and read what I wrote carefully.

Best,

Beast

#### zengrifter

##### Banned
Beast said:
BTW, zengrifter, I have gotten some info on you. If you don't play by the count because you are so paranoid about heat you will not win....period.
Feel free to share what you have heard here, let us all in on it. zg

#### Beast

##### Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Feel free to share what you have heard here, let us all in on it. zg
A conartist knows how to sell himself and this is you. You will never admit you are wrong and will argue because you can be convincing to those not experienced enough or maybe just a little gullable. One of the things you can't seem to control is being loud in the casino attracting pit attention. Probably the worst next to stealing in my book is not betting by the count because you are so paranoid. My friend told me that you were making \$50 off the top bets with a \$5k bank and then upping your bet if you won. When he asked you why you did that you said that you couldn't lower the bet after winning that hand. He went on to say you don't bet by the count at all because you are so paranoid about heat as I already said. BTW, I don't know why you keep saying Zen is performs equally to A02....do you think if you say it or write it enough times it will make it true?

Best,

Beast

#### zengrifter

##### Banned
Beast said:
• A conartist.
• One of the things you can't seem to control is being loud in the casino attracting pit attention.
• Probably the worst next to stealing in my book is not betting by the count because you are so paranoid.
• My friend told me that you were making \$50 off the top bets with a \$5k bank and then upping your bet if you won.
• When he asked you why you did that you said that you couldn't lower the bet after winning that hand.
• He went on to say you don't bet by the count at all because you are so paranoid about heat as I already said.
Based on the above, I'm a total charlatan.
Invite your friend(s) here to discuss in more detail, publically, with me.
-- z(The extroverted, paranoid, overbetting charlatan)g

Last edited:

#### Beast

##### Well-Known Member
Hi,

Discussion over....we both agree.

Best,

Beast

#### rukus

##### Well-Known Member
sorry all, didnt mean to cause a rukus :devil: . Due to my inexperience with ace-neutral counts, i really cannot step into the Zen vs. AOII debate, other than saying that from everything i've ever read (besides on this board), i have NEVER seen Zen quoted as producing as good results as AOII or HOII, either in one deck or 8D. Zengrifter, which articles/pieces were you refrencing when you "quoted" snyder and uston? whether you're right or wrong, i'd still take a read, because i did not follow what you were saying about the ace's 1/4 deck density comparisons being obsolete in AOII or HOII. Always curious what the great minds of BJ have to say about a count.

Also, what book published the Zen counts, i could use a read about them anyway (was it snyder in blackbelt in blackjack?)?

Now im going to have to flip open BJA again tonight since I'm pretty sure Don compared the Zen (and UBZ) to AOII/HOII/HiLo/etc from a SCORE perspective, and as far as i remember, Beast is dead on - higher return for the same ROR, whether you wong or not, for any given bet spread.

#### zengrifter

##### Banned
rukus said:
Now im going to have to flip open BJA again tonight since I'm pretty sure Don compared the Zen (and UBZ) to AOII/HOII/HiLo/etc from a SCORE perspective, and as far as i remember, Beast is dead on - higher return for the same ROR, whether you wong or not, for any given bet spread.
You can't go by the BJA sims.

The issue, which is old and settled a long time ago, is that the recommended method for counting the Aces - 1/4D density estimates - is not sufficiently accurate - this method will leave you with HO2/AO2 results only (at best) equal to ZEN.

In order to achieve the higher theoretical results, a secondary +/- count (A-2 vs 2/5+1) must be utilized. Something that virtually nobody does...

...or else both Snyder and Uston were dead wrong in their assesments.

And thus I'm wrong too, but then I have no credibility. zg
See -​

&

Also see Uston on Blackjack (1986, his final book)

Last edited: