Opinions please(on upgrading to a new system from Hi Opt II)...

[Ms. Dalton]

I've been using Hi Opt II with a side count(aces) for nearly 6 months and have been told it is incorrect. When learning it I thought it had a decent PE and betting correlation but is there something better suited for pitch(double deck in particular)? I assumed I have been making satisfying profits. Maybe I am not, what ratio of bankroll is a "satisfying profit" anyways? I am consistently realizing a profit of 20% of my bankroll, should I be expecting more? (If you annualized my blackjack return rate, it beats the heck out of my portfolio return!)
I would happily adopt a different method if it would materialize heftier profits. I'd be grateful if anyone would point out which system is best for my conditions. Here are my considerations:
- I play double deck as my staple game, which we all know is easy to count because its so much slower than shoe, so Hi Opt II isn't really difficult to utilize considering the slower pace.
- I typically play in the high limit pit. I prefer it because I can usually get next to someone playing larger than myself(which makes me comfortable), and floor seems to treat me better back there(I assume they don't want to offend larger players...bad for business, right?).
- I bet very conservatively, spreading only 1-4(this is mostly due to paranoia). If I am playing smaller hands on the main floor($50) I do spread more but get rather impatient with the time it takes to make similar money as with larger bets and less spread. I suspect the smaller spread is what allows me to not be bothered by floorpersons. The count rarely gets extreme yet fluctuations either way materialize greatly in my play decisions. My field of experience with statistics is mostly hypothesis testing as opposed to probability so I'm guessing here, but I assume the conservative betting is reducing the variance(I am not actually experiencing as much of the "what could happen" in either the negative or positive tails of the distribution) and so I'm not experiencing erratic dips in bankroll over the course of a trip. But I suspect I'm not making as much profit as I could be as well.
-I am not intimidated by learning a different system even if it is a bit complicated, I learn very quickly and would love to improve PE.
-Finally - I play every week. Its imperative that I not become an undesirable.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I've been using Hi Opt II with a side count(aces) for nearly 6 months and have been told it is incorrect. When learning it I thought it had a decent PE and betting correlation but is there something better suited for pitch(double deck in particular)?...

Who told you it is "incorrect?" HO2+A is one of the most powerful counts you can use in any game, without exception. Used it for quite a while myself. Just make sure you are using at least 18 playing indices in order to get its maximum benefit.

Most people avoid the sidecount systems because they are mentally taxing and can increase errors, but if you're not having a problem with it and feel you are implementing it well, you are not going to improve your game by switching to anything else. One nice feature of it is it provides some decoupling between your big bets and your insurance bets. Sometimes you'll be taking insurance on your smaller bets because all the aces have been dealt out, and sometimes you will not take insurance on big bets that are big only because of ace density. Surveillance, which uses High-Low all the time, will think you are misplaying insurance sometimes and thus not a very skilled player.

The only problem I can see with what you are doing is the marginal 1-4 spread. That's a little light for DD, but it seems like you have weighed the risks of spreading more and decided to opt for more longevity. Leaving the table a lot in bad counts may help. You might want to set a rule that if the count goes below a certain point on the first hand, you will leave the shoe. That should keep you out of a lot of bad counts.

 

[spyu]

Where can you find playing indices that correlate w/ the High Opt II and how do you structure your bets w/ the Ace side count?

 

[zengrifter]

The theme is "upgrade by downgrade"...

I myself played HO2 from '77-'84.

The reason that Ken Uston wrote in '86 (Uston on BJ) that HO2 was "obsolete" is that most practitioners cannot get full value out of it - the Ace-density estimate per 1/4D, for betting adjustment, is NOT accurate enough.

In order to get full value from HO2 you must use a secondary count consisting of 2,5 +1 v Ace -2. Then for betting, the secondary count is subtracted from the primary.

Sans the secondary count, you are obtaining the proximate edge of a level-2 Ace-reckoned count, maybe, BUT WORKING HARDER TO GET THAT EDGE than is otherwise necessary.

This is why ZEN, MENTOR, RPC, and even UBZ2 are superior choices for most counters - because most will never use the optimal secondary count and get the full value.

And along these lines, I pick MENTOR as the ideal count for 2D, with its 2D-based TC. And ZEN with a 1D TC ('83 version). And UBZ-2 (AutoMonk 2D version).

So why work harder than ZEN to get the same gain? zg

tags (2-A)

HO2: 112211 0 0-2 0
AO2: 112221 0-1-2 0
ZEN: 112221 0 0-2-1
MEN: 122221 0-1-2-1
UBZ: 122221 0 0-2-1
RPC: 122221 0 0-2-2

See also -
Can Side-Counting Make You a Super Counter?
By Arnold Snyder
The "Best" Card Counting System
By Arnold Snyder

.
​

 

[zengrifter]

Where can you find playing indices that correlate w/ the High Opt II and how do you structure your bets w/ the Ace side count?

FUHGETABOUTIT! zg

 

[moo321]

I don't think you're going to "upgrade" from the count you're using. It's probably the best for pitch games.

 

[zengrifter]

I don't think you're going to "upgrade" from the count you're using. It's probably the best for pitch games.

NO, its (HO2) NOT, for the reason(s) I gave. zg

 

[Automatic Monkey]

NO, its (HO2) NOT, for the reason(s) I gave. zg

Well wait, you don't know how well she is implementing it. Some people find sidecounts to be effortless.

Even with a simple ace-density sidecount, HO2+A does get you a tiny 1-3% advantage in win rate over the other counts, probably just because of the better insurance correlation.

 

[zengrifter]

Well wait, you don't know how well she is implementing it. Some people find sidecounts to be effortless.

Even with a simple ace-density sidecount, HO2+A does get you a tiny 1-3% advantage in win rate over the other counts, probably just because of the better insurance correlation.

Granted. Lets just say that my THEORY is that most (99%) of the HO2 practitioners who are so proud of their system mastery are barely generating ZEN/RPC performance. And, they are WORKING HARDER to do it. zg

.

 

[jetace]

I myself played HO2 from '77-'84.

Oh how I wish I could've played those years, before MIT, before 6:5 swarmed Nevada.

Do you recall playing 1D DA2 DAS resplit Aces and deep penetration? I bet it was prevelant.

 

[zengrifter]

Do you recall playing 1D DA2 DAS resplit Aces and deep penetration? I bet it was prevelant.

W/s17, those rules were not common. Caesars had a couple tables w/25-min like that.

But EVERYWHERE had deep 1D. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Granted. Lets just say that my THEORY is that most (99%) of the HO2 practitioners who are so proud of their system mastery are barely generating ZEN/RPC performance. And, they are WORKING HARDER to do it. zg

I'll add this - for the rare individual who can employ HO2 w/Ace side-count,
you can get greater power from ZEN w/7s side-count. In 1-2D games. zg

 

[Ms. Dalton]

Thanks!

Thank you all for your opinions, I appreciate them greatly. I am going to learn mentor and will play that for a while. This will actually be my 3rd system and hopefully it will be as easy to switch as it was the first time. I have to admit the side count has given me the sensation of more security on the table. While it doesn’t impact bet size much for me, it does impact insurance/play decisions and one of my favorite plays is to briefly spread to 2 hands mid-shoe when the deck is ten and ace rich – the side count is good for identifying this environment(I’ve had great experiences with this when the table is fairly empty).

 

[Automatic Monkey]

The Mentor Count

I ran some sims with the Mentor Count system tags on 8D games using the indices and spreads I use with my Ben Franklin Count. Turns out, with a 1-8 spread and a Wongout, Mentor outperfroms by a negligible amount without surrender, and in surrender games it outperforms by a slightly more than negligible amount, probably because the surrender rule raises the relative EOR of the 9. Way cool, hurrah for Renzey!

But I don't think I could ever get used to using a count named after a condom!

 

[zengrifter]

But I don't think I could ever get used to using a count named after a condom!

Forget Mentor, here's my new super-count -

tags (2-A)
12222 000-2-1
(used with a 1/4D density side-count of 7s&8s as a single-value block)

Its called the TROJAN count, and it stands ERECT against the competition.
Its a HARD count to BEAT! zg

 

[Ms. Dalton]

LOL, you guys are baaaad.

On second thought, from a girl's perspective...HARD is always so much better than the alternative.:grin:

 

[sagefr0g]

i recommend wonging in & out with good penetration. :devil:

 

[jack.jackson]

Forget Mentor, here's my new super-count -

tags (2-A)
12222 000-2-1
(used with a 1/4D density side-count of 7s&8s as a single-value block)

Its called the TROJAN count, and it stands ERECT against the competition.
Its a HARD count to BEAT! zg

That's pretty sweet, with that count its possible to bring your pe, up to about .95 if done properly. Ive brought my pe. up to about .70 SC 8,s and A's and Ic up to .90+.