Matter of Complexity, Matter of Return, personal Value
JSTAT said:
Most Hi-Lo authors must agree with Wong's "don't worry about it" stance concerning the side count of aces. Good for players who side count aces and bad for the others who drink the casino sponsored kool-aid. These authors will not be published by major gambling publishers if they don't play ball. Aces are to be reckoned with the 10's to satisfy the casino industry or become a internet yahoo.
Must agree? or do agree?:joker::whip:
There are enough experts in the field and professional antagonism to keep the authors honest and correct honest mistakes. There are other silent experts who are watchdogs that will comment on the work being produced.
I know nothing about your system. I am just assuming it is keeping a count or side count of As to make bets.
in the history of the game, I think in the 70s and 80s systems were getting more complex. Then it was realized that simple systems (like hi lo) were still effective. If you are writing for the masses then it seem reasonable an easy effective system would be the way to go.
wong made an editorial decision to drop the A side count information because it added little value for a lot of extra work. With probably all the counts you can do more to add power but the authors make a decision to not include or discover the information.
Simple systems make less but are easier to implement
Complex systems make more but are harder to implement
Which way to go is a matter of opinion. I use a high level count easily and to me the approx 5% more over hi lo is worth the effort, to others the opposite is true.
Rever Point Count probably outperforms Hi opt 2 in most situations without using an A side count.
If you think the A has extra value that needs to be considered in betting
HI opt 2 or Revere are the way to go. They are better then hi lo in most if not all situations.
A little more history of the game.
Jerry Patterson and his "Target System"
Patterson was I believe a respected author in the bj community. He had a couple books that talked about counting. Then he brought out Target which was bascially to look for tables where players are winning and avoid tables where players are losing. The other experts read and studied his thoughts and have debunked them, though you will still have some people tout it from time to time.
I don't have every bj book known to man but I think Schlesinger's books are interesting. He presents a bj problem, he shows you the math and his findings. He also offers himself up to discuss his ideas. All I believe rather inline with scientific discovery.
It seems you are on the right track, you need your ideas studied and then consider the results. The danger is in the human element, getting the study correct and not letting any bias; including yours, cloud the results.