Zen Count Vs. Hi-Opt II (No Ace Side-Count)
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
Jack_Black
Well-Known Member
yes, How about laying to rest the zen, HO2 debate with some charts? also, which zen count are people using here? I just did a quick comparison on CVCX and zen original full indices DID NOT BEAT HO2, no ASC. I used 6D s17 DAS RSA LS 1.5 deck pen.
Aha, I just read ICNT's post about LS effect on the systems. makes sense now.
Last edited:
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
DC,
Nice to see you posting,,,hope all is well,,,keep in touch.
Friend,
CP
I'll be back around more often CP. Things have been well, hoping to make it out and see everyone at the next Bash
I also love the chart from iCountNTrack. Honestly, what more could people want? Zen outperforms in the conditions in the opening post, sometimes Hi Opt II will as shown by ICountNTrack. Find your conditions, your game, your skills, and choose accordingly.
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
I guess that pretty much settles it! z:laugh:g
zengrifter
Banned
Three more obsolete ..err.. I mean antiquated systems.
Nothing wrong with them, or HO2, like driving an old exotic sports car. zg
Automatic Monkey
Banned
You did to that sim what Siegfried does to Roy.
You've got a S17 LS game, 6/1 pen, and a 1-20 spread with a Wongout and you get a SCORE only around 63??? That's the kind of game that's so good you wouldn't even risk a 1-20 spread.Under those conditions I get a SCORE of 120.46 for High-Low and 120.06 for HO2 with no sidecount. Being the difference is down in the noise I'll go as far as to say that for this sim the two counts are equal. But it's still not a very realistic situation. You have a player who switches to a level 2 count and learns full indices, but can't bother himself to do an ace-density sidecount?
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
You did to that sim what Siegfried does to Roy.
Under those conditions I get a SCORE of 120.46 for High-Low and 120.06 for HO2 with no sidecount. Being the difference is down in the noise I'll go as far as to say that for this sim the two counts are equal. But it's still not a very realistic situation. You have a player who switches to a level 2 count and learns full indices, but can't bother himself to do an ace-density sidecount?
did u NOT notice that I covered ALL SHUFFLE POINTS from about 2 decks cut out to 0.5 deck
Gramazeka
Well-Known Member
My opinion that is the interesting additional information.
zengrifter
Banned
Yes. Different than SCORE. What is the formula that arrives at OSR? zg
Automatic Monkey
Banned
Yes I did, and at a cutoff of about 1 deck you have it around 63.
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
Which is the correct answer for the conditions you requested: wong out at -1/-2, . I suspect your sim includes backcounting and wonging in at +2, while the sim i ran the player plays all counts greater than -2.
Automatic Monkey
Banned
No I am starting at the shuffle and Wonging out at the appropriate point. Are you sure you have a proper ramp? It should be obvious that with such a good game as we described, pen to 1 deck and aggressive spreading the SCORE is going to be a bit more than 63.
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
The betting ramps were generated using CVCX, again sometimes we can be deceived with pre-conceived ideas, we need to run the simulation to be sure. If a third person can run the sim that would be good.
6 deck, 1 deck cut-out, S17, DAS, LS, Hi-lo, bet spread 1-20, wong out at -2. thanks
Southpaw
Well-Known Member
I will see if I can confirm or deny this SCORE of ~60 (using CVData).
Gramazeka
Well-Known Member
This is Richard Reid's analyzer. This analyzer is
feeded with
Griffin's effect of removals from his book TOB that were appropriate for
single deck and specific Nevada rules.
Southpaw
Well-Known Member
My sim had the following parameters:
Hi-Lo (Full Indices)
Full-Deck Resolution
Rounded TC (this means the player will actually be wonging out at TC <= -1.51)
The betting schedule was:
TC <= 1: 1
TC = 2: 2
TC = 3: 5
TC = 4: 8
TC = 5: 11
TC = 6: 14
TC = 7: 17
TC = 8: 20
The Rules were:
6D, S17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, SP to 4, .75 Pen, DAS, DOA2, LS, 1 Card to split aces, face-up, 2 players.
Results:
(1 Billion Hands)
TBA = +1.770% (absolutely huge)
but the SCORE is still only = 54.15
Let's see what happens if we let it wongout at TC = -1 (this time I will use a truncated (instead of rounded) True count so that it will not wong at TC = -.51, for example).
Results:
(1 Billion Hands)
TBA = +1.919% (astronomically huge)
but the SCORE is still only = 43.03
Very f****** strange. The TBA gets larger, but the SCORE gets lower. Perhaps, I'll have to learn how SCORE is calculated, for it is clearly not in direct proportion to TBA. My guess is that SCORE takes into account how many hands you are getting in per hour, which will obviously be less when wonging out at TC = -1.
SP
Hi-Lo (Full Indices)
Full-Deck Resolution
Rounded TC (this means the player will actually be wonging out at TC <= -1.51)
The betting schedule was:
TC <= 1: 1
TC = 2: 2
TC = 3: 5
TC = 4: 8
TC = 5: 11
TC = 6: 14
TC = 7: 17
TC = 8: 20
The Rules were:
6D, S17, 3:2 BJ, No RSPA, SP to 4, .75 Pen, DAS, DOA2, LS, 1 Card to split aces, face-up, 2 players.
Results:
(1 Billion Hands)
TBA = +1.770% (absolutely huge)
but the SCORE is still only = 54.15
Let's see what happens if we let it wongout at TC = -1 (this time I will use a truncated (instead of rounded) True count so that it will not wong at TC = -.51, for example).
Results:
(1 Billion Hands)
TBA = +1.919% (astronomically huge)
but the SCORE is still only = 43.03
Very f****** strange. The TBA gets larger, but the SCORE gets lower. Perhaps, I'll have to learn how SCORE is calculated, for it is clearly not in direct proportion to TBA. My guess is that SCORE takes into account how many hands you are getting in per hour, which will obviously be less when wonging out at TC = -1.
SP