gazman: Level 2 count

[stainless steel rat]

> We've finally found something we can agree
> on. :-)

> Maybe it's simply because I play more pitch
> games than shoes, but I also find them
> easier to count.

I find it easier because it goes slower. The dealer has to go hand by hand, flipping over the face-down cards. Only time I ever have trouble is on the 10-up dealer natural where everyone throws in their hands in disgust. I'm not sure if the dealer is supposed to let the eye see all the cards or not, but in general they don't. Most of the time, they scatter enough that it is easy to scan 'em and be done with it, but on occasion a couple get obscured and there's little that can be done there. I try to play without a full table obviously...

I still think that CVBJ with dealer speed cranked up most of the way, animation cranked up all the way, is a good training device. I can't really use the neat "heads-up" special game because it won't let me play two hands at high counts (Norm!!! how about showing hand 1, letting me play, then hand 2, so you just keep one hand on table at a time, if space is at a premium...)

But back to the premise of SD/DD. I mainly like them as I hate to have big counts in shoes, and see the really wild/ugly variance that causes since the bet spread has to be so big. 1-8 in DD betting 5-40 has seen me toss $1000 into the dealer's tray pretty quickly. Of course I have vacuumed them out more than I've poured them in, but the damned swings is simply ridiculous on any game. Seems to be less pronounced on 1d/2d games. But that is opinion and not measured fact unfortunately.

I've seen new counters complain about lots of things.

(1) hard to count. The road to a winning advantage is the same road to Carnegie Hall... Practice, practice and more practice.

(2) TC conversion is hard. Practice...

(3) keeping the count is hard. Practice...

there is a theme here. Brother and his wife came over Sat night to play some hold'em with my wife and myself. He walked in as I was playing one of my light-speed heads-up practice sessions with CVBJ. He looked and said what are you doing, testing yourself on BS? I said "nope, I'm counting, playing BS, playing BS departures, varying my bet, and watching for dealer errors on payouts (CVBJ has that option.)" He said "no way you can be counting that mess..." I played 3 rounds, said RC is +5, TC is +2, then moved the mouse to the "tray" button. "I'll be a sumbi***" was the last I heard and he went to set up the chips and cards for hold'em. I've
learned that if I keep ramping up the speed so that I can't maintain 100%, that over time I can get back to 100% at that speed and ramp it up another notch. Dealers seem like they are in slow motion, even the ones that used to appear to deal at light speed. No dealer can rip cards from the shoe like CVBJ on max.

As I said, practice... My wife says I am obsessed. I say I am methodical. I'll leave it at that.

She's quit commenting, but I noticed tonight as I was playing the light-speed game, moving the mouse and continually click, click, click, she looked up, shook her head, and went back to whatever she was reading...

I sometimes feel a bit uneasy mentioning how "easy" this counting stuff seems. But if someone works at it a while, it _is_ easy...
easy to count, that is. Watching the variance in action can be painful...

[stainless steel rat]

> I'm sure what Stainless is saying here is
> correct, but I find it misleading. Whether
> you make 3 better plays per 100, or 3 better
> plays per 10,000, the criteria we should be
> looking at is the difference in SCORES. And
> if you compare Hi-Lo SCORES to, say, Zen (An
> excellent level two count that doesn't
> require an ace side count), you find that
> Zen outperforms Hi-Lo by 13% to 20%, across
> a variety of conditions, including
> multi-deck games. That's a 13% to 20%
> increase to your bottom line.

OK, here is some data from archived CVCX sims run by Norm.

DD game, S17, DAS, LS, 66% pen. Bet unit = 5, spread 1-8. Win per hour is $16.14 with Zen with full indices. Hi-Lo, same game, $17.51 per hour.

Now I am not going to begin to say the Zen with full indices is bad. I know nothing about it except what I pulled up in the Sim distributed with CVCX. This is zen 1998 with full indices, vs hilo with full indices.

I can post other data for other game specs if you want, but at least for the DD game here, they are close enough (Hi-Lo actually comes out ahead by a dollar) that the extra 2-level mental effort isn't worth it... Maybe I am looking at the wrong "zen" count as it is labeled "zen 1998 full indices"

> Having said that, a level 2 system is
> clearly more difficult to use than Hi-Lo. A
> lot of the posts on this thread and the
> other similar one on BJ Main give me the
> impression that the gains are
> inconsequential. But they are consequential,
> if one would consider a 15% raise
> consequential.

> -Myoo

Maybe for this particular game the difference is not exactly what you were expecting? Again, take this with the grain of salt that I know nothing about the Zen count except for the results in the sim I am quoting...

[Don Schlesinger]

> I mentally count HiLo and keep a side count
> of aces since I play double deck or less. Is
> this combination considered a Level 2 count
> or just an enhanced version of HiLo?

Level 1. Level 2 refers to the fact that at least one rank counts as +2 or -2.

> I usually "add" or top-off my bet
> with an extra unit when there are 2 extra
> aces available for the size of deck
> remaining (e.g., 1 deck remaining in a DD
> game and at least 6 aces remaining to be
> dealt).

Bad mistake!

> I read this in a BJ book I read years
> ago.

Bad advice!

> Does anyone else use this side count of
> aces to help with their betting spread?

Hi-Lo is an ace-reckoned system. You are already counting the aces in your primary count for betting purposes. So, why would you want to count them a second time -- still just for betting purposes? Doesn't make any sense.

> I also tend to table minimum my bets when ALL
> the aces are out of a DD game since my 3:2
> payout isn't going to happen --OR-- drop a
> unit or two off when there are TWO less ACES
> for the estimated remaining decks.

See above. Bad idea. Double counting.

> Finally, in BJA3 (have had the book for
> about 1 year, I think I'm going to need
> another 50 to halfway understand it all!)

Take your time. After the softcover comes out in a couple of weeks, I won't write anything new for a while, to allow you to catch up! :-)

> the Insurance Index for a DD game is +3.

Precisely 2.4 for Hi-Lo, DD, if you reckon TC precisely (which no one does), otherwise +3 is fine. (Note to "stainless steel": +2 isn't correct.)

> If you know the ace side count, can/should you
> use that information to fine tune the
> Insurance wager?

Yes, if you are nimble with numbers.

> I'm sure the answer is
> going to be Yes,

See? You were right!

> but exactly how would you
> alter your play? What would this new, Tens
> Only Insurance Index be?

A bit complicated to explain, but I'll give it a shot, below.

> A detailed math explanation would be best
> for me to understand it. (e.g., RC is +8, 1
> 1/2 decks remaining, so Insurance would be a
> good bet since the TC is above 5 (+5.33 to
> be exact) and the Index is +3. However, what
> if you know that there are 7 aces remaining
> in the deck {one is staring at you as the
> dealer pleasantly asks,
> "insurance?"}. Would you adjust
> the RC down to +7 (from +8 to +7 for the one
> extra ace in the shoe) and then convert to a
> TC (14/3=4.67) and compare to the new
> "ten's only insurance index" that
> you have created? Or do you remove ALL the
> aces (RC of +8 down to +1 and then convert
> to a "ten only TC") and compare to
> the newly minted index we are talking about.

Actually, you were pretty close. Your error, upon ascertaining that there's an extra ace remaining (7 instead of 6), was to drop the RC by only 1 instead of 2. You see, the point is that you have to reverse the error of counting the ace as a negative card when, for insurance purposes, it should be counted as a positive card. So, for each deficient or extra ace that you surmise, you double-count by the amount of the surplus or deficiency, in adjusting the RC. Then, with this modified RC, you calculate the TC in the normal fashion. (Caution: You have to remember what the original, unadjusted RC was so that you can go back to it and resume counting after the insurance bet is made. This is crucial!)

So, in your example, RC of 8 would become 6, and 6 /1.5 = 4; so you'd still insure, but the play would be somewhat closer. Note, also, that when you ace adjust, the insurance index is always +3, even for SD, so you have to be careful there, as well. You can't use your old 1.4 or 2 for SD, if oyu're side-counting aces.

> Thanks in advance to the mathematicians. I'm
> looking forward to the information and
> opinions on this one!

No "opinions" for stuff like this. Just mathematical facts. :-)

Homework assignment: It's DD with a half-deck remaining (yeah, I know, Fantasyland!). RC is -2. NO aces remain. Do you insure or not? Why?

Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> DD game, S17, DAS, LS, 66% pen. Bet unit =
> 5, spread 1-8. Win per hour is $16.14 with
> Zen with full indices. Hi-Lo, same game,
> $17.51 per hour.

No, makes no sense. P. 171, Table 9.19 of BJA3 shows Zen clearly superior. So does BJRM. I'll have to check what you did with CVCX, but stop using small units like $5 and generate SCOREs, with $10,000 banks. Something is wrong with the comparison. Hi-Lo should never outperform Zen.

Don

[stainless steel rat]

> No, makes no sense. P. 171, Table 9.19 of
> BJA3 shows Zen clearly superior. So does
> BJRM. I'll have to check what you did with
> CVCX, but stop using small units like $5 and
> generate SCOREs, with $10,000 banks.
> Something is wrong with the comparison.
> Hi-Lo should never outperform Zen.

> Don

When I post numbers I _always_ post numbers that reflect what I am playing. Why would I care about the result for a player that might bet $500 or $1000 max when I am playing on a smaller scale?

To look at the numbers I posted, use CVCX, and pick hilo with full indices (Don't pick the heads up one) and zen 1998 with full indices.

I set bet spread to 1-8, and manually set max bet to $5 so that I would not get into the problem from the last time where the min bet doubled at some point in the deck penetration.

I set the "rules" to what I gave above, and set penetration to 66%.

I could certainly have screwed it up, and await a description of what I did wrong. I was not trying to show that HiLo is better than Zen. My original idea was to see how much better Zen was than HiLo based on the archived 2E09 sim runs Norm distributes.

[Don Schlesinger]

> When I post numbers I _always_ post numbers
> that reflect what I am playing. Why would I
> care about the result for a player that
> might bet $500 or $1000 max when I am
> playing on a smaller scale?

Because the uniformity of the compariosn is what's important. If you make the precise same bets at the precise same TCs for two completely different systems, you're comparing apples to oranges, and the comparison has no meaning.

> To look at the numbers I posted, use CVCX,
> and pick hilo with full indices (Don't pick
> the heads up one) and zen 1998 with full
> indices.

You need to understand -- I realize all of this!

> I set bet spread to 1-8, and manually set
> max bet to $5

Min bet.

> so that I would not get into
> the problem from the last time where the min
> bet doubled at some point in the deck
> penetration.

> I set the "rules" to what I gave
> above, and set penetration to 66%.

> I could certainly have screwed it up, and
> await a description of what I did wrong.

See below.

> I was not trying to show that HiLo is better
> than Zen. My original idea was to see how
> much better Zen was than HiLo based on the
> archived 2E09 sim runs Norm distributes.

You can't compare two systems by forcing the bet sizes to be identical. You can only specify the bankroll and the spread, in units. Then, you need to let the software determine what the unit sizes will be. Otherwise, you're constraining too many of the variables, and the comparison is invalid.

Your same bank with one system might permit different bets and ramps than what that bank permits using another system. Surely, you understand this, right?

Don

[stainless steel rat]

> Because the uniformity of the compariosn is
> what's important. If you make the precise
> same bets at the precise same TCs for two
> completely different systems, you're
> comparing apples to oranges, and the
> comparison has no meaning.

It will be apples to oranges no matter what. I want to know what works best for _me_ in the situation _I_ have to play in. It helps me not at all to know that should I double my min bet, then this new system might perform a bit better due to the way the betting ramp roundoff/truncation/etc works out.

> You need to understand -- I realize all of
> this!

> Min bet.

> See below.

> You can't compare two systems by forcing the
> bet sizes to be identical. You can only
> specify the bankroll and the spread, in
> units. Then, you need to let the software
> determine what the unit sizes will be.
> Otherwise, you're constraining too many of
> the variables, and the comparison is
> invalid.

But again, _I_ have to play the game. What good is it to tell me that A is better with a unit of 5 on a 1-8 spread, but B is better with a unit of 10 on a 1-8 spread? Suppose I can't, or don't want to bet at a minimum unit of 10?

So if someone tells me "my system is better than your system" I think it appropriate to plug in their system, with _my_ betting unit/spread, and see what happens. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them twaddle with the bet ramp.

Yes, I can see that some systems have a better win rate, which could mean a lower ROR for a given bankroll, letting you bet higher with the same bankroll. But that doesn't always mean that I _can_ bet higher... for reasons from table max to attention from the pit, to whatever...

However, for completeness, I'll try to post the numbers for a fixed $3000 BR, and let the hi-lo and zen sims find the optimal bet size/ramp, to see what the numbers say... But with the players I know, most seem to find some betting min and spread that fits their "comfort level" and they go with that. Spreading 5-50 gets much less attention than spreading 25-250 does when most of the games are 5-10 min tables.

Surely it can't be wrong should I choose to switch to another counting system, but still spread 5-50 (I usually go 5, 10, 20, 2x25). I can't see letting the "system" dictate" my exact bet unit. Suppose it is impossible to do? IE playing green at a $200 max table. No way to play 50 to anything over 200, but 25-200 will work.

I may well have been making a technical mistake, but I have been using my $5-40 (one hand only when there is no empty spot to spread to) or 5 - 2x25 when I can, for a long time. To the point that I don't have to do much thinking about which bet to push out after doing the TC conversion. Changing the rules for the game might well change the optimal bet, such as the Hi-Lo ramp issue I asked about last week. But it doesn't change _my_ betting ramp whatsoever, which lets me play with very few betting errors as oppposed to having to adjust my min bet and ramp for every different set of rules and penetration I encounter...

For example, with the last Hi-Lo sim I asked about, clearly I am _not_ going to increase my min bet size on those occasions where the dealer puts the cut card 42% from the back of the deck as opposed to when he puts it 44% back (56% pen). Were I playing absolutely optimal, I would want to change my bet min and ramp, but I don't believe I could do that without making significant numbers of errors.

So in theory, perhaps any kind of change is allowable. In practice, I don't think so.

Again, IMHO only, of course.

> Your same bank with one system might permit
> different bets and ramps than what that bank
> permits using another system. Surely, you
> understand this, right?

yes, I mentioned it above before seeing this. But there are reasons why I might not want to change my bet min or ramp, or why I might not be allowed to change it if it would violate a table max at a few indian casinos I have visited, were I playing green all the time. I've run into many $200 max tables at indian casinos. On the MS coast I've not seen many below $1000-$2000. In Vegas seems like most were $5000 max.

But, again, note that I have made lots of "concessions" to the game. Different BS for 1D vs DD vs 6D. Different indices for things like insurance, BS departures, etc. But to have a unique min bet and ramp for each rule variation, and each penetration variation, is beyond my ability to manage. For those that can, I envy you. For me, I'd need a huge supply of duct tape to keep my head wrapped so it would not explode.

So if you want me to use your system, its going to have to fit my "bet level". And if it beats my system, I will give it serious thought. But if it can't beat me with my bet level, and depends on the fact that it provides enhanced PE to let me bet bigger for the same ROR, I may or may not consider that to be useful.

Hope I have made my thoughts clear, whether or not you agree with them.

And remember, I have no plans to be a "pro" gambler. I don't have a fixed "bankroll" that I plan to grow over time. I go to play, have fun, and win money, without depending on the wins to support me. In that light, I have been succeeding for several years. My "bankroll" doesn't vary. If I thought it important, I could walk into my local casino and cash in for $10,000 and not suffer any life-changing result if I lost every penny. But I don't personally play like that. Each session is a new experiment for me, I play with a trip BR of $1000 that usually lasts a couple of days. If I go for a week, I usually take $5000 for the trip BR. And to date, I have never gone "bust" for a trip. I have had losing trips of course, and winning trips. But hopefully you see how I am playing the game, and why I have adopted the playing style I use. $5 to 2x50 can blow a grand in an hour. Or it can win the same. And normally, it comes nowhere near either of those, which is fine by me. I know what to expect for playing time, heat (if any) and potential loss or gain, based on tens of thousands of hands at that betting level. I feel comfortable with it, my wife is comfortable with it, and I generally plan on sticking with it, although a few $25 table SD/2D games have been fun. Were I to drastically change my betting level, it would probably take us both a while to reach a reasonable comfort level, assuming the new count that goes with the new betting level maintains variance at the same level as what I see now...

Hope that wasn't too long. I've used lots of CVCX runs to study the specific games I play, and adjust my betting schedule to have a reasonable ROR and win rate per hour. But if CVCX says I need to bet a min of $10, it might get a bad response.

> Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> It will be apples to oranges no matter what.

Why do you say that? That's simply not true. Are you familiar with the SCORE methodology? If not, please reread the chapter before we continue.

> I want to know what works best for _me_ in
> the situation _I_ have to play in.

Doesn't exactly make you unique! :-)

> It helps
> me not at all to know that should I double
> my min bet, then this new system might
> perform a bit better due to the way the
> betting ramp roundoff/truncation/etc works
> out.

Why does that help you "not at all"? I don't understand your problem (not the first time!).

> But again, _I_ have to play the game. What
> good is it to tell me that A is better with
> a unit of 5 on a 1-8 spread, but B is better
> with a unit of 10 on a 1-8 spread? Suppose I
> can't, or don't want to bet at a minimum
> unit of 10?

You misunderstand. No one is saying that. And, if you insist on making the starting units identical -- whcih is fine -- then the superiority of Zen is going to come from requiring a smaller bank to achieve the same hourly win rate with the same ROR as Hi-Lo.

> So if someone tells me "my system is
> better than your system" I think it
> appropriate to plug in their system, with
> _my_ betting unit/spread, and see what
> happens.

That's simply wrong, and no matter how many times you write it, it will still be wrong. Systems are made to be bet in a certain manner. If you want to ignore your edge at each true count and impose a bet that isn't Kelly optimal for the count being used, you're free to do whatever you please, but you're underutilizing the system.

Here's an example: You can use a level-4 system but require the player to be blindfolded. That system will now underperform Hi-Lo. So what?

> Yes, I can see that some systems have a
> better win rate, which could mean a lower
> ROR for a given bankroll, letting you bet
> higher with the same bankroll. But that
> doesn't always mean that I _can_ bet
> higher... for reasons from table max to
> attention from the pit, to whatever...

That's true of ALL systems. If you can't use them to their maximal efficiency, blame the real world, not the system.

> However, for completeness, I'll try to post
> the numbers for a fixed $3000 BR, and let
> the hi-lo and zen sims find the optimal bet
> size/ramp, to see what the numbers say...

Patiently, I explain: It's all been done already -- in the SCORE chapter, in CVCX, in BJRM. Don't reinvent the wheel.

> But with the players I know, most seem to
> find some betting min and spread that fits
> their "comfort level" and they go
> with that. Spreading 5-50 gets much less
> attention than spreading 25-250 does when
> most of the games are 5-10 min tables.

The point being?

> Surely it can't be wrong should I choose to
> switch to another counting system, but still
> spread 5-50 (I usually go 5, 10, 20, 2x25).
> I can't see letting the "system"
> dictate" my exact bet unit.

See above. If it doesn't dictate your unit, then it dictates your bank. If you choose to keep both the same, then it dictates your ROR. You don't get to dictate all three!

> I may well have been making a technical
> mistake, but I have been using my $5-40 (one
> hand only when there is no empty spot to
> spread to) or 5 - 2x25 when I can, for a
> long time. To the point that I don't have to
> do much thinking about which bet to push out
> after doing the TC conversion. Changing the
> rules for the game might well change the
> optimal bet, such as the Hi-Lo ramp issue I
> asked about last week. But it doesn't change
> _my_ betting ramp whatsoever,

If you always bet the same, no matter what the rules/conditions, then you're not playing properly.

> which lets me
> play with very few betting errors as
> oppposed to having to adjust my min bet and
> ramp for every different set of rules and
> penetration I encounter...

No one is telling how to play. Do what you enjoy doing. But then don't quote any math related to it, for comparison purposes, because the comparisons are meaningless. If you hamstring a superior system, it is no longer superior. But it's not the fault of the system.

> So if you want me to use your system, its
> going to have to fit my "bet
> level". And if it beats my system, I
> will give it serious thought. But if it
> can't beat me with my bet level, and depends
> on the fact that it provides enhanced PE to
> let me bet bigger for the same ROR, I may or
> may not consider that to be useful.

Do whatever makes you happy. Just don't quote the math.

> Hope I have made my thoughts clear, whether
> or not you agree with them.

There's nothing to agree with. No one can tell you how to play the game. But, when we make comparisons of systems, we either level the playing field, or we're wasting everyone's time.
So, continue to do what you're doing and to enjoy. That's what it's all about. But, leave the side-by-side comparisons alone.

Don

[stainless steel rat]

OK, data from CVCX archived sims.

HiLo, full indices. Win rate $35.06 per hour. Only constraint is $3000 BR. Max bet = 80, min bet = 10 for optimal betting (as chosen by CVCX)

Zen, full indices. Win rate $33.33 per hour. Only constraint is $3000 BR. Max bet = 80, min bet = 10, for optimal betting (as chosen by CVCX).

In the above, I let CVCX compute the optimal bet size and ramp for a $3K BR. Somehow HiLo is still better than the zen 98 count for this 2D game, DAS, S17, LS + 66% pen. Both ramp up the optimal min met size as the pen approaches 60%...

Not sure what else I can say. There is likely some small differences between the two sims that I am overlooking, but in any case, the two counting systems don't seem to be separated by anywhere near a significant amount...

I might try running a couple of sims later tonight to be sure that everything else is exactly the same in the comparison, since I am not sure of any subtle differences Norm might have specified in the sims he distributes with CVCX...

more later...

[stainless steel rat]

> Why do you say that? That's simply not true.
> Are you familiar with the SCORE methodology?
> If not, please reread the chapter before we
> continue.

yes I am. But remember, my interest here is betting a specific amount when I play. Period. If you compare my counting system with my betting plan, against another counting system with a different minimum bet/max bet, then that is apples to oranges in this context, because I am going to bet 5-50 in these DD games, period. Or in a good SD game I might bet 25-100, period.

I agree that some have a pure bankroll and want to maximize it. I, on the other hand, have a pure bet range.

Because experience has shown that this bet range produces fluctuations I can manage to deal with and overcome.

> Doesn't exactly make you unique! :-)

> Why does that help you "not at
> all"? I don't understand your problem
> (not the first time!).

> You misunderstand. No one is saying that.
> And, if you insist on making the starting
> units identical -- whcih is fine -- then the
> superiority of Zen is going to come from
> requiring a smaller bank to achieve the same
> hourly win rate with the same ROR as Hi-Lo.

I picked up on that. But again, my point. I am going to bet X min and Y max. You pick the count that is best for me knowing that X and Y are not going to change. Then you'll understand my perspective when comparing things. Yes, Zen will lower my trip ROR. But I have my own way of lowering the trip ROR. If a _really_ bad fluctuation happens, I just drop by the bank and go back to playing.

> That's simply wrong, and no matter how many
> times you write it, it will still be wrong.
> Systems are made to be bet in a certain
> manner. If you want to ignore your edge at
> each true count and impose a bet that isn't
> Kelly optimal for the count being used,
> you're free to do whatever you please, but
> you're underutilizing the system.

> Here's an example: You can use a level-4
> system but require the player to be
> blindfolded. That system will now
> underperform Hi-Lo. So what?

I'm not sure my idea is _that_ extreme. For example, suppose someone wants to learn to count and they move to a location where they can bet from $5 to $50, _period_. Which count should they use and why? My answer is whatever they can do most accurately and with the least effort. For me, that's hi-lo. And since this particular pseudo-store limits my bets very precisely, I can't change. Now I can change where I increase my bets (at which TC value) and I can even bet in increments of $1 if I want. But I don't go outside my min/max boundaries...

> That's true of ALL systems. If you can't use
> them to their maximal efficiency, blame the
> real world, not the system.

> Patiently, I explain: It's all been done
> already -- in the SCORE chapter, in CVCX, in
> BJRM. Don't reinvent the wheel.

> The point being?

> See above. If it doesn't dictate your unit,
> then it dictates your bank. If you choose to
> keep both the same, then it dictates your
> ROR. You don't get to dictate all three!

I realize that. I pick my unit. I pick my bank. The ROR falls where it may with me. In fact, I don't play with any ROR because I really won't be "ruined" playing at this level anyway. Maybe the "fun" will be ruined, but that's a different topic.

> If you always bet the same, no matter what
> the rules/conditions, then you're not
> playing properly.

I realize that but I also realize there is little alternative. What do you do when you play at a DD game that I hit about 2 months ago and the dealer varied from 45% pen to 80% pen almost randomly? No way I can figure out how to adjust my betting optimally for that. I just played and won, and won more as the pen went up and less as it went down. I think this is the difference in theory and practice. In theory there is a correct answer for every set of circumstances. In practice, it is unmanagable...

> No one is telling how to play. Do what you
> enjoy doing. But then don't quote any math
> related to it, for comparison purposes,
> because the comparisons are meaningless. If
> you hamstring a superior system, it is no
> longer superior. But it's not the fault of
> the system.

> Do whatever makes you happy. Just don't
> quote the math.

> There's nothing to agree with. No one can
> tell you how to play the game. But, when we
> make comparisons of systems, we either level
> the playing field, or we're wasting
> everyone's time.
> So, continue to do what you're doing and to
> enjoy. That's what it's all about. But,
> leave the side-by-side comparisons alone.

> Don

[Random Poster]

If I remember right, the Zen 98 version is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You should choose hi-lo lite to compare with the Zen 98 or you should choose the old Zen to compare with the regular hi-lo. AS rounded and deleted more than enough matrices to affect win rates in pitch games.

> OK, data from CVCX archived sims.

> HiLo, full indices. Win rate $35.06 per
> hour. Only constraint is $3000 BR. Max bet =
> 80, min bet = 10 for optimal betting (as
> chosen by CVCX)

> Zen, full indices. Win rate $33.33 per hour.
> Only constraint is $3000 BR. Max bet = 80,
> min bet = 10, for optimal betting (as chosen
> by CVCX).

> In the above, I let CVCX compute the optimal
> bet size and ramp for a $3K BR. Somehow HiLo
> is still better than the zen 98 count for
> this 2D game, DAS, S17, LS + 66% pen. Both
> ramp up the optimal min met size as the pen
> approaches 60%...

> Not sure what else I can say. There is
> likely some small differences between the
> two sims that I am overlooking, but in any
> case, the two counting systems don't seem to
> be separated by anywhere near a significant
> amount...

> I might try running a couple of sims later
> tonight to be sure that everything else is
> exactly the same in the comparison, since I
> am not sure of any subtle differences Norm
> might have specified in the sims he
> distributes with CVCX...

> more later...

[Koolipto]

Bear with me while I try to put into English what I think is going on. If I am wrong, someone will correct me. First, looking at a couple of the HiLo and Zen sims in CVCX, I was able to get close to your win rates, but not exact. Nevertheless, I was able to reproduce higher win rates on the archived HiLo sims than the Zen sims (using your assumptions and constraints).

What is important though is that the SCORE for Zen were higher than the HiLo SCORE numbers. If I take Don at his word (which I do) without fully understanding the risk/return concepts, the Zen game is better. Why...? I'm guessing because the standard deviations are higher on the HiLo (which they were in the sims I looked at). To get your higher return, you took on more risk (not just relative to the bankroll and betting ramp but in relation to how the system performs against the game). SCORE is telling you that if the two games were bankrolled and bet ramped for an identical risk level (not with the same bank roll and bet ramp), you would have a higher return with Zen.

Think about your investments. Sure, small cap growth stocks have a higher expected return than large cap value, but you are taking a bigger risk to get it. Which is better? Depends. Don, in his chapter on SCORE mentions the Sharpe ratio for investments. I can't remember if it's calculated the same way, but SCORE is the BJ version of measuring the trade off.

Look, you may feel constrained by the bank roll and want to use a specific bet ramp. You may then end up with a game that give you a comparatively better return than the SCORE comparisons would indicate. But, and it doesn't matter if you like it, understand it or not...you are taking on more risk.

That's not going to kill you if you recognize what you are doing. But having said that, don't agonize over it.

Don, or someone else, please fix my characterization of SCORE if I mucked it up.

> OK, data from CVCX archived sims.

> HiLo, full indices. Win rate $35.06 per
> hour. Only constraint is $3000 BR. Max bet =
> 80, min bet = 10 for optimal betting (as
> chosen by CVCX)

> Zen, full indices. Win rate $33.33 per hour.
> Only constraint is $3000 BR. Max bet = 80,
> min bet = 10, for optimal betting (as chosen
> by CVCX).

> In the above, I let CVCX compute the optimal
> bet size and ramp for a $3K BR. Somehow HiLo
> is still better than the zen 98 count for
> this 2D game, DAS, S17, LS + 66% pen. Both
> ramp up the optimal min met size as the pen
> approaches 60%...

> Not sure what else I can say. There is
> likely some small differences between the
> two sims that I am overlooking, but in any
> case, the two counting systems don't seem to
> be separated by anywhere near a significant
> amount...

> I might try running a couple of sims later
> tonight to be sure that everything else is
> exactly the same in the comparison, since I
> am not sure of any subtle differences Norm
> might have specified in the sims he
> distributes with CVCX...

> more later...

[Ouchez]

> Level 1. Level 2 refers to the fact that at
> least one rank counts as +2 or -2.

> Bad mistake!

> Bad advice!

> Hi-Lo is an ace-reckoned system. You are
> already counting the aces in your primary
> count for betting purposes. So, why would
> you want to count them a second time --
> still just for betting purposes? Doesn't
> make any sense.

> See above. Bad idea. Double counting.

I understand your reasoning but as a player who does an Ace side I can only say that I find it highly usefull and I lose very, very few sessions taking this extra info into account. It is no problem to carry out the side count, for me, so why not.

To each his own.

> Take your time. After the softcover comes
> out in a couple of weeks, I won't write
> anything new for a while, to allow you to
> catch up! :-)

> Precisely 2.4 for Hi-Lo, DD, if you reckon
> TC precisely (which no one does), otherwise
> +3 is fine. (Note to "stainless
> steel": +2 isn't correct.)

> Yes, if you are nimble with numbers.

> See? You were right!

> A bit complicated to explain, but I'll give
> it a shot, below.

> Actually, you were pretty close. Your error,
> upon ascertaining that there's an extra ace
> remaining (7 instead of 6), was to drop the
> RC by only 1 instead of 2. You see, the
> point is that you have to reverse the
> error of counting the ace as a negative card
> when, for insurance purposes, it should be
> counted as a positive card. So, for each
> deficient or extra ace that you surmise, you
> double-count by the amount of the surplus
> or deficiency, in adjusting the RC. Then,
> with this modified RC, you calculate the TC
> in the normal fashion. (Caution: You have to
> remember what the original, unadjusted RC
> was so that you can go back to it and resume
> counting after the insurance bet is made.
> This is crucial!)

> So, in your example, RC of 8 would become 6,
> and 6 /1.5 = 4; so you'd still insure, but
> the play would be somewhat closer. Note,
> also, that when you ace adjust, the
> insurance index is always +3, even for SD,
> so you have to be careful there, as well.
> You can't use your old 1.4 or 2 for SD, if
> oyu're side-counting aces.

> No "opinions" for stuff like this.
> Just mathematical facts. :-)

> Homework assignment: It's DD with a
> half-deck remaining (yeah, I know,
> Fantasyland!). RC is -2. NO aces remain. Do
> you insure or not? Why?

> Don