Zen Count Vs. Hi-Opt II (No Ace Side-Count)

[psyduck]

But let's say you are in the Utopia Casino, all 6D, all dealing down to a half deck. And an infinite number of tables. BJA is right. You are better off not playing that last hand or two and seeing what's happening at another shoe, because there are other shoes that are going up to +4 and +5 early in the shoe and you're going to have a lot of fun with it.

How do you know another shoe is TC 4? Maybe you have a teammate signaling to you. I play alone and will never Wong out at TC 2 (hilo) regardless of shoe depth. Sure you can Wong out at TC 10 if you know another shoe at TC 15.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

How do you know another shoe is TC 4?...

How do you know you're going to win your hands when the TC is +2? You don't know, there's just an increased probability of it. In the game you describe there is a sufficient chance that any other shoe will go higher, and for longer, to make it better to leave and check it out. As a counter, every new shoe you walk up to is +EV.

Here's a way to calculate it. Calculate the dollar value of a new shoe for you. A plain old ordinary shoe, whether you are playing all hands, backcounting, or Wonging out of low counts. Convert that to dollars per hand and write it down. Then calculate the value of X hands at TC=Y. If the value of those X hands, per hand, is less than the value per hand of a new shoe, you walk.

 

[psyduck]

How do you know you're going to win your hands when the TC is +2? You don't know, there's just an increased probability of it.

How do you know if you will win your hand at other counts? Only increased probability? That is all I need.

 

[zengrifter]

No thanks. I need no guidance. I use my own simulation results for my own game. I do not take what any book says at face value.

I meant the simulation you are trying. Its a QFIT simulator, right? zg

 

[bigplayer]

wasn't your comparison sim using a SD game?
counting a 6:5 game is a waste of time.
The majority of the games are shoes, but there are still plenty of DD and a litte 3:2 SD that HO2 would destroy.



who uses 1/4 estimation on a shoe game in general? most people use 1/2 and 1 deck estimation. SO, if you would like to use HO2 on a shoe, use 1 deck estimation and check against 4 ace/1deck for aces that have been seen or unseen.

as a matter of fact, I will run a sim of just the opposite of yours. Let's see if HO2 will benefit from using a -1 tag for the aces, or even -2.

Almost everyone I know who uses the Zen count uses Snyder's older Zen 1980 version that uses count per deck versus his newer "true edge" or count per quarter deck version.

 

[jack.jackson]

Yes. Different than SCORE. What is the formula that arrives at OSR? zg

Not sure, but the OSR is highly sensitive to bet speads. As a "matter of fact" the OSR will exactly match a systems BC when infinite spreads(around 1:120>) are implemented. Its why UstonsAPC has the highest OSR when flat betting(because of the .69 pe).

 

[jack.jackson]

HO2 (with an ASC) has outperformed any other system that I have bothered running sims with. It certainly is NOT my intention to say the system is weak. This was ONLY a TEST to see how the system did without its ASC. A test requested that I perform by zengrifter.

Have you tried it against A02 w/full ASC??

If so, do you have the results? I would be interested to see how Ho2 with lower sprecs beats Ao2.

If not, would you be up for the challenge?

Ho2
.982
.668
.90

Ao2
.989
.671
.85

How bout it? That would be a slugfest.

And Btw, nice work on the sims. Well done!

 

[Southpaw]

I would of course be willing to simulate this. I have never run simulations using Bryce Carlson's Advanced Omega II, so this shall be interesting.

A few parameters. So, you want a low spread to be used? Could you specify how low? What game conditions do you want? The spreads suggested by zg were highly conservative. Do you want me to try to incorporate wonging, though it may skew the results (I could always just report the % of hands played). I am also going to report s.d. for this one (I don't know why I didn't, for the original ones now that I think of it.)

SP

Edit: Looking through the systems, it is a relief to find that both Humble and Carlson provided an abundance of indices for their respective systems, so there should not be any discrepancies as to which system has the more complete set of indices. It would be interesting to see how the Zen Count fares against HO2 (No ASC) in the surrender varieties now that I've generated surrender indices for the Zen Count (before the system had to rely on the basic strategy for surrender). My guess is that Zen would now take the 2 and 6 deck competitions, but HO2 would still win the 1 deck surrender variety.

Have you tried it against A02 w/full ASC??

If so, do you have the results? I would be interested to see how Ho2 with lower sprecs beats Ao2.

If not, would you be up for the challenge?

Ho2
.982
.668
.90

Ao2
.989
.671
.85

How bout it? That would be a slugfest.

And Btw, nice work on the sims. Well done!

 

[jack.jackson]

I would of course be willing to simulate this. I have never run simulations using Bryce Carlson's Advanced Omega II, so this shall be interesting.

A few parameters. So, you want a low spread to be used? Could you specify how low? What game conditions do you want? The spreads suggested by zg were highly conservative. Do you want me to try to incorporate wonging, though it may skew the results (I could always just report the % of hands played). I am also going to report s.d. for this one (I don't know why I didn't, for the original ones now that I think of it.)

SP

Edit: Looking through the systems, it is a relief to find that both Humble and Carlson provided an abundance of indices for their respective systems, so there should not be any discrepancies as to which system has the more complete set of indices. It would be interesting to see how the Zen Count fares against HO2 (No ASC) in the surrender varieties now that I've generated surrender indices for the Zen Count (before the system had to rely on the basic strategy for surrender). My guess is that Zen would now take the 2 and 6 deck competitions, but HO2 would still win the 1 deck surrender variety.

A while back, i helped participate in this little contest. And unless im mistaken i manually input the surrender indices, that was closest to my knowledge. Its kinda irrelevant to have one system use them, while the other does'nt in LSr game.

I think we should set the parameters, as close to realiisticly as possible. But perhaps, emphasize on different pen depths. For starters I believe we should leave multiple decks out all together. And focus primarily on single and double deck games, while using full indices and ASC in all scenarios. Only pen, rules and spreads will vary. Perhaps between 3-7 sims would give us a good idea on the performances between the two systems.

As long as you agree, or wish to change anything from this point, i'll let you decide on the rest of the parameters. I feel a range between a 1:4 and 1:12 spead would be sufficient.

Hopefully ic&t wont be too annoyed

 

[Southpaw]

A while back, i helped participate in this little contest. And unless im mistaken i manually input the surrender indices, that was closest to my knowledge. Its kinda irrelevant to have one system use them, while the other does'nt in LSr game.

I think we should set the parameters, as close to realiisticly as possible. But perhaps, emphasize on different pen depths. For starters I believe we should leave multiple decks out all together. And focus primarily on single and double deck games, while using full indices and ASC in all scenarios. Only pen, rules and spreads will vary. Perhaps between 3-7 sims would give us a good idea on the performances between the two systems.

As long as you agree, or wish to change anything from this point, i'll let you decide on the rest of the parameters. I feel a range between a 1:4 and 1:12 spead would be sufficient.



Hopefully ic&t wont be too annoyed

O.K. I will begin working on this tomorrow. Here is what I am thinking for the simulations.


Single-Deck, H17, Split to 2, 3:2 BJ, DD 10/11, NS, DAS, Head-On

The pens will be .50 and .75

For each pen, a spread of 1-4 and 1-6 will be tested.

Single-Deck, S17, Split to 4, NoRSPA, 6:5 BJ (Hey you said realistic, right?), DOA2, LS, DAS, Head-On

The pens will be .50 and .75

A spread of 1-6 and 1-10 will be tested for each pen.

Double-Deck, H17, Split to 2, 3:2 BJ, DD 10/11, LS, noDAS, Head-On

The pens will be .60 and .80

For each pen, a spread of 1-4 and 1-10 will be tested.

Double-Deck, S17, Split to 4, RSPA to 4, 3:2 BJ, DOA2, NS, DAS, Head-On

The pens will be .60 and .80

For each pen, a spread of 1-4 and 1-10 will be tested.

Let me know what you think of these parameters. Of course, full indices will be used for each system and each system will have its ASC. However, I can't bring myself to turn on the deck resolution to one card, so I will use 1/4 deck resolution.

SP

 

[jack.jackson]

O.K. I will begin working on this tomorrow. Here is what I am thinking for the simulations.


Single-Deck, H17, Split to 2, 3:2 BJ, DD 10/11, NS, DAS, Head-On

The pens will be .50 and .75

For each pen, a spread of 1-4 and 1-6 will be tested.

Single-Deck, S17, Split to 4, NoRSPA, 6:5 BJ (Hey you said realistic, right?), DOA2, LS, DAS, Head-On

The pens will be .50 and .75

A spread of 1-6 and 1-10 will be tested for each pen.

Double-Deck, H17, Split to 2, 3:2 BJ, DD 10/11, LS, DAS, Head-On

The pens will be .60 and .80

For each pen, a spread of 1-4 and 1-10 will be tested.

Double-Deck, S17, Split to 4, RSPA to 4, 3:2 BJ, DOA2, NS, DAS, Head-On

The pens will be .60 and .80

For each pen, a spread of 1-4 and 1-10 will be tested.

Let me know what you think of these parameters. Of course, full indices will be used for each system and each system will have its ASC. However, I can't bring myself to turn on the deck resolution to one card, so I will use 1/4 deck resolution.

SP

Looks real good. If you want, you could change one of the DD sims to NDAS, but it doesnt matter too much. This should be interesting to see the results. And Kudos to you for taking the time and effort to run amd post the sim results. Let the games begin

Im kinda curious to see if Ho2 gets the edge in 6/5 and deeper pen. This is because Ho2 uses about 15 to 20 extreme indices that Ao2 doesnt and cant because of the tagged nine. Deeper pen means more extreme counts, and more oppurtunitys for Ho2 to utilze those extreme indexes. Hmmmm, let's see.

 

[Southpaw]

I will make the first DD game noDAS, so that we can see what happens when doubling is really restricted. (doubling is already restricted to 10/11).

SP

 

[Southpaw]

Well, Jack,Jackson, I am about 30-40% done with the study. I'd have had it done by now, but this weekend, I got to play blackjack for money for the first time ever and I wanted to make sure I was going to be ready.

Back to the lab again.

SP