comparison between Hi Opt II and Zen

[petenelson]

hi, im new to the forum but being a blackjack player for a while now.
I've been using the Hi Opt I until now to play at the casino and, although I've been winning, I want to improve my play. After testing some head on play on CVBJ with the Hi Opt II attached (wich is the new strategy I want to learn), I see that is a very effective one and is worth the effort, but when I looked for a book where it comes described, I also encounter some disccusions in blackjack forums about the strategy to be obsolete. I don't think it is, but after comparing the Hi Opt II with the Zen in my tests I can see that the results are quite similar, but I just consider the zen to be a strategy so easy to be better than the Hi Opt II.
Just tell me what are your arguments for each one and what should I learn next, the zen or the Hi Opt II. I really don't want to put effort in one strategy if I can get the same or very similar results with an easier one.

[Freightman]

Flash is the resident Hi Opt 2 expert - and it is far from obsolete. Played with an Ace side count, it has both high betting correlation and playing efficiency. Zen is also very popular and effective.

[Three]

Just tell me what are your arguments for each one and what should I learn next, the zen or the Hi Opt II. I really don't want to put effort in one strategy if I can get the same or very similar results with an easier one.

Either system will serve you well. Straight side counting aces (hiopt2) requires accurate to 1/4 deck deck estimation skills. Personally I prefer a balanced ace side count for a few reasons including this one. The info that comes with hiopt2 uses a straight side count. Since you have been using hiopt1 I assume the side counting issue is something you are totally comfortable with if not that is one point for zen.

Zen and other ace compromise counts were brilliant innovations that surprised everyone. I don't think anyone expected the results for counting the ace as a weak high card would be so strong. It improved PE to something more palatable while not affecting BC much. The result is a count that works well for all games from SD to large shoe games. Hiopt2 will beat it at every game but that is assuming perfect play. Coming from a hiopt1 background you have a better shot at that than most.

Your question asks about extra effort. That is a personal question. If you find the ace adjustments are hard or take too long using hiopt1 it is something to consider. If not it is a non-issue. All things being equal hiopt2 is the easier switch for someone with a hiopt1 background but there is not much of a difference between the transition to either. Both involve changing count tags from 1 to 2. Zen adds an extra rank at this +2 but eliminates the side count. The latter shouldn't be much of an issue for you but that depends on how you feel about the side count.

Really the choice has more to do with you than anything else. If you plan on using additional side counts the gain will be more using Hiopt2. The gain is proportional to the starting PE of the main count. Hiopt2 wins on the sim at every turn but not by a lot. If you find the simplicity of Zen vs Hiopt2 appealing choose Zen. IF not take a good look at Hiopt2. There is no better linear level 2 count.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

petenelson,

I called myself "ZenMaster" after I initially learned the ZEN COUNT in 1985.

I consider myself semi-retired as a player. I played just over 300 hrs. this year.
As a Professional Player - [for the last 23.5 years] - I used ZEN [1992 to 2002]
before switching to Hi-Opt II [2002 to present.]

Hi-Opt I was a fine idea, but casual readers of "The World's Greatest Blackjack Book"
are nearly certain to miss why that is so. There are 2 reasons for my accolade.
Hi-Opt I was designed only as a Base Count. It was to be used by the Card Counter
who wishes to Side-Count all of the unincluded ranks and adjust their plays accordingly.

NOTE: For that level of devotion to accuracy, the Gordon Count is the "Gold Standard".

Hi-Opt I was an incremental stepping-stone to Hi-Opt II, sold privately at a high price.
Hi-Opt I with Multiple Side Counts is EXTREMELY powerful in "pitch games" BUT numerous
side-counts are hard to employ in a shoe game, where Playing Efficiency is less important
than Bet-Sizing.

Hi-Opt II is "Highly Optimal" and has extraordinary power in Shoe Games. I was a casual player
from 1985 to 1992. By then I was sharp enough to ditch my lucrative profession to play as a Pro.

That being said, the ZEN Count is the perfect choice for a player who is serious about blackjack
and plays primarily shoe games. Hi-Lo suffices for recreational players AND for pros who are
Ace-Sequencing, Shuffle-Tracking, or using classic team play vis a vis "Spotters" and "Big Players".

[ZenMaster_Flash]

" ... add your opinion on VAPC and RPC to the thread and perhaps the number or best indices one should first employ."

The K.I.S.S. Principle and the O.P.'s questions fueled my post - "whittling down the field", as so to speak,
to the "Best Counts", short of the "Tarzan Count."

In Blackjack "LESS is MORE" sometimes. While counter-intuitive, Level 3 and (even) Level 4 counts like:
VAPC, Revere, Halves, UAPC are actually not superior to Hi-Opt II ! Exploring a dozen counts does the
neophyte BJ player no good at all. Its confuses. It crowds the field and it blinds the eye.

Not entirely different from the 17 prospective Republican Presidential candidates clamoring for media attention,
though most have dubious qualifications or are (virtually) deranged.


Oops. Sorry. That was meant to be an an analogue - not political commentary - using humor to make a point.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Sometimes it's not always a matter of being superior but a matter of ability to employ with ease. I would think RPC and
Halves are furlongs better than Hi LO yet far easier to employ than Hi Opt II. ... clarify if there is little or no advantage of
ease/profit with RPC and/or Halves over Zen."

Halves is universally recognized as a very difficult if not the hardest count;

and while it is certainly better than Zen it is not better than Hi-Opt II.

Now, Repeat after me ... "Diminishing Returns."

NOTE that Hi-Opt I is better than all of these IF, and only IF,
it includes Side-Counted Aces, 7's, 8's and 9's; and even then,
The Gordon Count is marginally better yet; while both are not
well-suited for blackjack beyond 2 decks. Side-Counting Aces,
as with Hi-Opt II or AOII is simple, I add 7's for "pitch games"
I routinely profit with a 3-1 spread this way at the best DD games,
betting black, while the "red carpet" of comp's is rolled out for me.

That brings us right back to Hi-Opt II and ZEN !
This focus on "EASE" of play vs. "Profit" is illusory.
Hi-Opt II and ZEN are both rather easy to employ.


If numbers as 'large' as 2 are viewed as difficult, perhaps serious
Card Counting is a poor idea. Alternative avocations can be found.

[stopgambling]

He would use Hi Lo because he can St and do other stuff . I liked Zen and would use it with a little tweak with the Ace. I do not see a lot of use for it right now so i do not bother switching which will include downtime of at least 3 months !

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Rumor has it the originator of Zen has stated he would employ Hi LO if he had it to do all over again. Please squelch this rumor if it isn't so.

Rumors are begun by Zealots (no need for names) whose veracity
have been called into question ... as it is in Western religious history.

The Zen Count was created (almost) simultaneously by 2 different authors.
The one that most are familiar with is Arnold Snyder. The "Bishop" Snyder
was a Postal Employee from Berkely, California. The other is C. Ionesco Tulcea,
a Romanian Professor of Mathematics. For awhile there was active debate as to
who was the originator, BUT just as with Calculus, we have two thinkers arriving
at an effective count with the same Tags and Indices published at the same time.

RE: R.P.C. The Revere Point Count is an Ace Reckoned Count. I must consider
Ace-Reckoned Counts as being too crippled to be worthy of (serious) discussion.

RE: ZEN The Zen Count uses a Compromise where Aces are NOT side-counted,
nor are they treated the same as Picture Cards. Aces are counted at "half weights"

While not as advantageous as a Side-Count, it recovers much of what is lost by
reckoning Aces at the "Full Weight" of Face Cards. A truly excellent compromise!

[petenelson]

thanks to all of you for replying so fast. I now have a clearer idea of what to expect from each system. I think I'm going to switch to the Zen, because I'm playing shoe games most of the time. Just one more question: in the CVBJ there are 3 zen counts, the basic, the complete and the 98 zen count, what are the differences between these and wich one do you recomend to play in a shoe game 4D to 6D??

[ZenMaster_Flash]

You want the Complete Zen Count.

[petenelson]

is that count in the 2005 Blackbelt in Blackjack??
or what books do you recomend??

[seriousplayer]

Hi-Lo suffices for recreational players AND for pros who are
Ace-Sequencing, Shuffle-Tracking, or using classic team play vis a vis "Spotters" and "Big Players".

Why is Hi-lo only suffices for recreational blackjack and not professional blackjack?

[Ryemo]

Petenelson,

You'll want Synder's TC indices for Zen that was published in the first edition of Blackbelt in Blackjack (BIB). Here's what you need:

http://blackjackforumonline.com/cont...nt_Indices.htm

The 2005 version of BlB is a good source of information, but his latest edition of the book provides indices for the Zen Count using TE% (True Edge %), vs the True Count version that you'll find in the link I provided. TE% version divides the running count by quarter decks vs whole decks. If you'd like to get a hold of the first edition of his book, you can find a used copy at Abebooks.com very cheap.

From my understanding, the TC method is stronger than the TE version, so I would learn the original Zen Count TC indices.