Hi-Opt II side count

[BjFool]

Can anybody tell me if a side count of 4's and 5's makes sense for betting and playing precision?

Correct me if I'm wrong but since those 2 low cards are good cards for the dealer, shouldn't they be included in a separate count along with the Ace side count?

Unlike the Ace card (-1) the 4's and 5's would have a +1 value and change the TC according to the number of 4's and 5's remaining in the deck (in my case decks)?

again tx in advance

BjFool

 

[Rob McGarvey]

That is how Humble put the original Hi Opt II together, but it does not work like the Uston version does. If you are using 4 and 5 and a whack of 2 3 6 & 7 are out you will be missing out. And keeping that second count is a waste of grey matter. Watch the discard tray, count the # of A you have seen per 1/4 deck (13 cards) and make adjustments to your bet. 4 per deck. It will help you discover how easy it can be, depending on the shuffle, to track them. The Uston-McGarvey version DOES NOT drop the bet when the deck is Ace poor which further increases the overall gain of the Hi Opt II. "UM" Hi Opt II. I'm working on a "UMX" version.

 

[zengrifter]

Re: Hi-Opt II - DISAGREE

**My responses to Robo's "advice" -

"That is how Humble put the original Hi Opt II together, but it does not work like the Uston version does."

**Aucontraire, Humble advocated the inadequate Ace-denisity per 1/4D method. Secondly, there is NOT a "Uston version" of HO2, never was.

"If you are using 4 and 5 and a whack of 2 3 6 & 7 are out you will be missing out. And keeping that second count is a waste of grey matter. Watch the discard tray, count the # of A you have seen per 1/4 deck (13 cards) and make adjustments to your bet. 4 per deck."

**Uston specifically said that the Ace-density per 1/4D method "IS OBSOLETE" (see Uston on BJ'85) and ASnyder even earlier (BJForum'83) likewise came to the same conclusion.

It will help you discover how easy it can be, depending on the shuffle, to track them.

**Poppycock!

The Uston-McGarvey version DOES NOT drop the bet when the deck is Ace poor which further increases the overall gain of the Hi Opt II.

**Not dropping the bet when the deck is Ace-poor totally negates any remaining value of the already inadequate Ace sidecount method that he just advocated. Bottomline is this - without a simultaneous 3-card secondary count overlay of As -2 vs 2s,5s +1 the HO2 will AT BEST perform on par with ZEN or RPC which require no Ace-adjustment, or UBZ2 which doesn't even require a TCadjust. The so-called 'UM' version described above will perform substandard. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Re: Hi-Opt II (REAL SIDECOUNTS)

The real sidecounts worth noting, due to the appreciable boost in gain to the PE (playing efficiency) are the 'bivaluate' 7s and 8s. zg