employing the ace side count

[NotEnoughHeat]

I hope this gives you enough answers to decide what is best for you. Everyone is different.

Thanks again for the response. This has probably been the most informative and helpful response to one of my questions I have ever received. On top of that, it actually has an affect on my game (or will eventually). It is never the answers fault when it hasn't been the case since I quite often ask inapplicable-out-of-curiosity type questions.

I am about to head out so I'll have to leave at that for now, but when I come back I will edit this post with what I am currently leaning towards after reading your post as well as a potential followup question that will fill in some other details of my game.

[NotEnoughHeat]

I'm just going to make a new post so the response doesn't go unnoticed

Zen [...] If there is no surrender option and you aggressively take insurance this may be the count for you.
Mentor [...] If you have surrender available and don't take insurance for heat reasons this count may be for you.

Either of the compromise counts would be fine. I would choose Mentor but you must fit the pros and cons of counting the 9 to the games you will be playing. If the 9 is a problem use Zen.

If I had to choose a compromise count Zen seems like the way to go. I aggressively take insurance (heck, I have even taken insurance on hands that weren't mine!) and have no surrender option in my nearby stores. Also, for similar if not better specs*, Zen has one less rank to track, which is probably better for ease of use.

However the choice that was only on the edge of mind (due to exposure rather than merits) before your helpful response that's now on the forefront is HIOPT II/ASC. Yes, I want more bang for my buck, I don't need the versatility of Zen. I want my gun to use a high caliber to blow away shoes. I may consider pitch games later on, however in my current situation the pitch games have either too high limits or are just crap (more than likely, both). To me, Zen would be more appealing if I was playing whatever I could get my hands on and switching constantly from pitch to shoe and back.

With similar strength and specs as well, the choice between HIOPT II/ASC and AO2/ASC is easy. Why have a burger for $7.99 when I can have a burger, that tastes just as good, and fries on the side for the same price? However, they aren't the same price. The route to HIOPT II/ASC has a very good transition path for a HILO player, as it seems. Yes, while I can go for BO2 before AO2 then AO2/ASC the alternative just seems so much better. HI OPT I is very similar to HILO and I am not jumping straight into a level-two, but switching to a cousin level-one and learning a side count. Also, it would not seem difficult to revert back to HILO if required for team play.

Though there is a lower marginal gain from the effort put in to heading up to UACP/ASC (or perhaps a modified halves), in the long haul, I want to get as good as I can get. Once the effort is put in, even though I'm not getting as much of a sale, the work pays out good dividends. However I think once I finally do decided I want to move beyond HIOPT II/ASC when the time comes, I think I might as well go full speed ahead and leave the conventional method for something non-linear. I still have no idea how difficult that sort of thing maybe, but the price you pay for what you get seems much more attractive. I just have to be careful about buying bulk and not being able to eat it all. Perhaps by the time I reach that point, there will exist or be in the works, an approach with similar power to what you, Moses, and Tarzan do, but with greater ease of use.

Anyways, that's my review. I hope it feels a bit fulfilling to hear how I take your advice and how much of a real impact it might have on my development as a card counter and AP in general. This thread looks like it's slowly going out so I won't keep tapping it anymore. Thanks again.

*P.S. I'm a bit unsure of how to look at different specs in relation to each other. I am sure that they should be weighted differently (ie. .97 to .98 BC and .56 to 0.55 PE doesn't result in zero net gain/loss) but I don't know how one might compare them without plugging everything in a sim. Also, perhaps the gain in each spec may not be linear (ie. the gain from .94 to .95 not being equal to .97 to .98). We can discuss this else where though

P.P.S. On my writing style this post, excuse my overload of analogies, I think moses is rubbing it off on me. Also, I fill in a lot of information or details that may be readily apparent to you, but this has others in mind rather than you. I'd like to give the full form to make the post accessible and useful to others who might benefit from the conversation we've had.

[FishBear]

You you want to use a side count of aces with HILO, use HIOPT I as the main count and a level 1 side count balancing A's against 2''s. You get the PE of HIOPT I and the betting of HILO when the counts are combined. A few of HILO's indices are stronger than HIOPT I so you can use those instead of HIOPT I for those playing decisions and improve on the PE of HIOPT I. You get the BC of HILO (.97), a PE higher than HIOPT I (.61+) and an IC of HIOPT I (.85). That is a big improvement on both counts. HIOPT I/ASC BC of .95 goes to .97 while HILO PE of .51 goes to .61+ and HILO IC goes from .76 to .85. I believe there was a creeping cat that cried ouch as he had a spat with Norm and left the site who called this hilo-lo. He often raved about his hilo-lo but never said exactly what it was. This count certainly fits the name hilo-lo.

how do you use the information of 2s + As for insurance? The index is 2.4, but what if there is an excess or absence of 2s and As? Often times I just default to using the hiopt1 count, but sometimes if there are a lot of aces and 2s out, I just go with my intuition and insure even though the count doesn't warrant it.

[texrex]

You got it backwards. It's for playing decisions only, and doesn't change betting decisions.

actually he is right, but not totally

[bjanalyst]

Ace Sidecounts are overkill for the modern shoe game. If you play a mix of shoes and pitch games and want increased power you should consider one of the two combos using the same index numbers for both systems

1. High-Low and Hi-Opt I
OR
2. Original Zen and Advanced Omega II

Another alternative to higher level counts or an Ace side count for the HL counter playing shoe games is keeping a 7m9c (Seven minus Nine count) side count where 7's are +1 and 9's are -1. Read details in my reply in previous post "Taking Neutral Cards into Account".

[bjanalyst]

how do you use hi / lo with an ace side count? One means is insurance decisions. If the deck is ace poor and you are at a neutral count you might want to take insurance. But what if you have a TC of 2 or 3 with a shortage of 2 or 3 aces. Would you still raise your bet? Would you raise your bet but bet less than you would if there was an average amount of aces remaining? Is there some application for soft doubling here, specifically with A6, A7 or A8? Certain splits might be sensitive to a paucity or surplus of aces.

I agree with what others have responded. For the shoe game, keeping an Ace side count with the HL is rather useless since the Ace is already included in the HL count. The Ace is already taken into account for betting in the HL count and whatever strategy changes the ASC helps the HL with are very minor and insignificant strategy changes.

I suggest using for the HL counter playing shoe games who wants to keep a side count to keep the 7m9c (Seven minus Nine count) side count where 7's are +1 and 9's are -1.

Unlike the Ace side count with the HL, the 7m9c helps with HL betting. brc = betting running count = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) increases HL betting efficiency for S17, DAS, LS game from 96.5% to 98.1%. The Ace side count does not help with HL betting efficiency at all.

Also, the 7m9c helps with several playing decisions. I listed the top 6 playing decisions it helps with and more details in a previous post.

The top 6 decisions that the 7m9c helps with are important decisions that occur often as compared to the infrequent playing decisions that an ASC would help the HL with.

The top 6 playing decisions that 7m9c helps with are standing on hard 14 v T and surrendering hard 14 v 9, T, A, hard 13 v T and 8,8 v T DAS. These are decisions that occur frequently and are important and surrender not only increases EV but reduces risk so the help with the surrender decisions are very important. Compare that to the ASC help with some minor soft doubling decisions and no help at all with betting.

Keeping track of two level one counts, HL in your head and 7m9c with chips, is easier than keeping a complicated level 2 count such as EBJ2. You update the HL on the fly as cards are played and updated 7m9c after all cards are on the table by scanning for 7's and 9's on the table.

So with HL with 7m9c you keep the HL for most playing strategy decisions, you use brc = HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) for betting and you use 7m9c for the top 6 playing strategy decisions I covered in my previous post.

So not only is HL with 7m9c easier than learning and new count system such as EBJ2 it is also more powerful than EBJ2. You keep most of the HL indices and no new count system to learn such as switching to a complicated level 2 count like EBJ2 or a count such as the complicated level 2 HO2 with ASC.

Adding the 7m9c to the HL gains 54% of the gain you would get with HO2 w ASC. Not bad for a very simple plus/minus side count which is exact (as compared to ASC which is approximate because decks played is an estimate) and which fluctuate around its mean of zero (as compared to ASC where Aces played are always increasing).

Gronbog's sim of HL with 7m9c for betting and top 6 plays (HL+7m9c-b-p top 6).
Six deck, five decks dealt, Late Surrender, back counted, 1-8 spread:

HiLo Full no indices...........n/a
HiLo Full Indices ...........88.18
HiLo+7m9c-b-p top 6.....95.66
HiOpt II + ASC.............102.08

So HL with 7m9c top 6 gives (95.66 - 88.18) / (102.08 - 88.18) = 54% of the HL gain you would get if you used HO2 w ASC.

You could use chips to keep 7m9c or with practice you may be able to keep both HL and 7m9c in your head while counting - you would be keeping just two small integers in your head if you keep both HL and 7m9c. But you can also use chips for 7m9c if you can't keep two integers in your head.

Read details of HL with 7m9c in my reply in previous post "Taking Neutral Cards into Account".