What would be the advantage in this game?

[Freightman]

Yeah but Hiopt2 is easier than Halves.

But, is it? Fewer tag values - true. Hi opt 2 requires the discipline to ACCURATELY measure ace surplus or deficit, and then making the proper betting play adjustments. I don't think it would be much if a problem for me, though I would question its effect on my speed of play - possibly to the tune if 20%. It would also require me to absorb different indexes etc. If I played a lot of pitch, the effort would be worthwhile. As I'm primarily, as in 99%, a shoe player, and my system is so automatically ingrained, I would continue with what I have.

I fully recognize that BC for the 2 counts are VERY similar (with Hi opt ace side count) and that there is a PE difference, in fact or if hi opt 2 with its ace neutral system.

[Three]

Hi opt 2 requires the discipline to ACCURATELY measure ace surplus or deficit, and then making the proper betting play adjustments.

I was worried about 1/4 deck estimate accuracy. It was one of several reasons I went balanced ace side count. When I use Hiopt2 I use my balanced ace side count and add a multiple of it to the playing count that is practical to use to get the betting count that maximizes BC. The BC is better than straight side counted Hiopt2 and you ramp your bets a full TC increment earlier. It makes a huge difference in the frequency of advantage situations for each advantage step in your betting. As you can imagine it adds a lot to EV. In the game that I simmed last, a fairly mediocre shoe game, the frequency of advantage situations for the traditional TC is about 30%. For my twist it is over 40%. Each bet in your ramp is bet 13% to 72% more frequently than it is bet in the traditional approach for the middle of the ramp. Oddly there is a zigzag pattern to frequency increase where every other frequency increase is on the large end of this range and the ones in between are in the lower end of the range. This keeps growing beyond that range until after max bet the frequency almost doubles followed by almost no change with each increment. At the low end of max bet TC's the increased frequency 83% at the TC only my approach is betting max bet followed by 1.36% at the first TC where both approaches are betting max bet. The balanced ace side count allows count tags to be adjusted from what is best for playing to what is best for betting by having ranks counted in both counts in opposite directions. You can imagine the gain from an average of 25% more advantage bets made at each betting level in the same amount of time with more accurate advantage assessment. That is just a linear application of using 2 counts. Any simulator could do this. Using the same information nonlinearly requires a custom simulator and dwarfs the gain in EV already outlined.

[Freightman]

I was worried about 1/4 deck estimate accuracy. It was one of several reasons I went balanced ace side count. When I use Hiopt2 I use my balanced ace side count and add a multiple of it to the playing count that is practical to use to get the betting count that maximizes BC. The BC is better than straight side counted Hiopt2 and you ramp your bets a full TC increment earlier. It makes a huge difference in the frequency of advantage situations for each advantage step in your betting. As you can imagine it adds a lot to EV. In the game that I skimmed last, a fairly mediocre shoe game, the frequency of advantage situations for the traditional TC is about 30%. For my twist it is over 40%. Each bet in your ramp is bet 13% to 72% more frequently than it is bet in the traditional approach for the middle of the ramp. Oddly there is a zigzag pattern to frequency increase where every other frequency increase is on the large end of this range and the ones in between are in the lower end of the range. This keeps growing beyond that range until after max bet the frequency almost doubles followed by almost no change with each increment. At the low end of max bet TC's the increased frequency 83% at the TC only my approach is betting max bet followed by 1.36% at the first TC where both approaches are betting max bet. The balanced ace side count allows count tags to be adjusted from what is best for playing to what is best for betting by having ranks counted in both counts in opposite directions. You can imagine the gain from an average of 25% more advantage bets made at each betting level in the same amount of time with more accurate advantage assessment. That is just a linear application of using 2 counts. Any simulator could do this. Using the same information nonlinearly requires a custom simulator and dwarfs the gain in EV already outlined.

There's value here - a concern would be the number of most players failing to estimate to 1/4 deck accuracy. Another issue to be considered, is the different stores use different types of cards, which result in different deck thicknesses. Shouldn't be an issue in your home stores, though I see a problem when on the road.

[Three]

Basically what I have described allows you to get fractional tags in your betting count without counting any fraction tags. It is like using a a much higher level count than you are counting. For VAPC the count multiple of the balanced ace side count to add to the playing count was 3/4. that allowed for age from 0 to +3 at 1/4 count tag intervals. The result is a level 9 count (the inverse of 1/4 times the maximum count tag in the betting count). But you never count anything count tags 1 thru 4 in either count. You can get really creative and have use a betting count that is way more difficult and accurate than anyone could count and the top playing performance of VAPC.

For example a playing count of (A-T):
(0,0,1,2,3,2,1,0,-1,-2) PE .6624
Balanced ace side count (A-T):
(-4,2,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,) and a multiplication factor of 2/3
Add the playing count to 2/3 of the side count to get a betting count that has tags (A-T):
( -2.67, 1.33, 1.67, 2.67, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2) BC .9957
This has .33 tag accuracy for what is essentially a level 9 betting count:
(-8, 4, 5, 8, 9, 6, 3, 0, -3, -6) but you count no tags over a tag value of magnitude 4.

Anyway that is just an example of how my 2 count system is a vast improvement with just a linear application of the info contained in 2 counts. I just whipped this one up on the fly right now to illustrate what I am talking about. The balanced ace side count I use for Hiopt2 has a linear betting adjustment factor of 1/2. BC is only slightly higher than Hiopt2 traditionally counted but as explained in my previous post it is vastly superior to Hiopt2 for betting. Basically it adds about .3% advantage to every traditional Hiopt2 TC advantage estimate that predicts an advantage and gets an advantage at 1 TC less than traditional Hiopt2. That .3% average extra grows by .01% with each increment higher in TC.

Just trying to inspire others to think outside the box.

[Three]

A lot of you guys may be intimidated by larger count tags. How about this for those that like simpler things:

Playing count (A-T):
(0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1) PE .6367
Balanced ace side count (A-T):
(-2,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) optimal multiplication factor 2/3
Combined betting count (A-T):
(-1.33, 0.67, 0.67, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, -1) BC .9756

Essentially a level 4 count that has only 1 count tag of -2 and the rest plus or minus 1 or 0 with no overlap between the 2 counts:
(-4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 0, 0, -3)

Again just made up on the fly to illustrate the flexibility of a balanced side count in hopes of inspiring others to think outside the box.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"The balanced ace side count I use for Hiopt2 has a linear betting adjustment factor of 1/2. BC is only slightly higher than Hiopt2 traditionally counted but as explained in my previous post it is vastly superior to Hiopt2 for betting. Basically it adds about .3% advantage to every traditional Hiopt2 TC advantage estimate that predicts an advantage and gets an advantage at 1 TC less than traditional Hiopt2. That .3% average extra grows by .01% with each increment higher in TC."

THIS, I am certain, is unclear to most of our readers. Please elaborate upon this in order to clarify.

[Freightman]

"All are playing at a $25 minimum bet table. I'll let them choose the deck estimate for their answers?

Freighter, your Wong Halves running count is +6 1/2. How much do you bet on the next hand? How many hands do you spead to? and why?

Heads up, assuming normal factors, all answers are 1 hand
After 1 hand -$50
After 3 decks -$200 (though may bucket from 150-250.
After 5 decks - 300-600, usually around 300-400

With other players
After 1 hand - $50
After 3 decks - 2x200, though may bucket
After 5 decks - 2x250-350, though I've gone higher.

I don't necessarily follow covariance rules as I'm still in very safe ror territory.

Factors, perceptions on deck composition will affect betting levels. I probe up and down within a bucket group. Think of it of intersecting Olympic Rings. In other words, your TC 3 bet is a low end tc4 bet, or a high TC 2 bet. Makes you look more like a progression type bettor, the key is to be at least at your minimum ramp for the TC. Eventually, you're figured out, but it keeps you alive longer.

One of the consistent things about my game is it's inconsistency. To put it into perspective - befire I went out in my own, I was a sales type guy. Competitors were always robotic in their sales quotations, presentations etc., much like the counter who auto revs from 25 to 2x300, and back down to 25 - totally predictable and totally easy to pick off. I demolished them, and it wasn't hard to do. Likewise, unlike the robotic counter, I play within my buckets, because that's what counters don't do. Simply coincidental that big bets coincided with high true counts . Trick is to beat the ramp on the way up, so that you're probing stays within the bucket, if close to it. To throw something else into the equation, Snyder in one of his books, has a section on opposition betting. There are several forms if this. It is a hidden nugget which virtually all robotic type players ignore, but there is some real true value there - requires a roll resistant to variance. Judgement is key here.

[Freightman]

"All are playing at a $25 minimum bet table. I'll let them choose the deck estimate for their answers?

Freighter, your Wong Halves running count is +6 1/2. How much do you bet on the next hand? How many hands do you spead to? and why?

Heads up, assuming normal factors, all answers are 1 hand
After 1 hand -$50
After 3 decks -$200 (though may bucket from 150-250.
After 5 decks - 300-600, usually around 300-400

With other players
After 1 hand - $50
After 3 decks - 2x200, though may bucket
After 5 decks - 2x250-350, though I've gone higher.

I don't necessarily follow covariance rules as I'm still in very safe ror territory.

Factors, perceptions on deck composition will affect betting levels. I probe up and down within a bucket group. Think of it of intersecting Olympic Rings. In other words, your TC 3 bet is a low end tc4 bet, or a high TC 2 bet. Makes you look more like a progression type bettor, the key is to be at least at your minimum ramp for the TC. Eventually, you're figured out, but it keeps you alive longer.

One of the consistent things about my game is it's inconsistency. To put it into perspective - befire I went out in my own, I was a sales type guy. Competitors were always robotic in their sales quotations, presentations etc., much like the counter who auto revs from 25 to 2x300, and back down to 25 - totally predictable and totally easy to pick off. I demolished them, and it wasn't hard to do. Likewise, unlike the robotic counter, I play within my buckets, because that's what counters don't do. Simply coincidental that big bets coincided with high true counts . Trick is to beat the ramp on the way up, so that you're probing stays within the bucket, if close to it. To throw something else into the equation, Snyder in one of his books, has a section on opposition betting. There are several forms if this. It is a hidden nugget which virtually all robotic type players ignore, but there is some real true value there - requires a roll resistant to variance. Judgement is key here.

Another point is the out of town honey pot. I've closed the books on 2015, a far better cry than my sole losing year of 2014. Despite playing 35-40% of previous years typical hours, I performed well over EV, actually ending up with my second best year. Found a real cheap flight, a decent hotel with included buffet breakfast, and an outrageously priced car rental. Played this afternoon (which I'll call Jan 1), so as not to make multiple expense calculations for 1 trip.

So, back to the honeypot. To give myself flexibility, I have various options to play in a general geographic area. One of the critters recognized me from a previous visit, commenting after numerous min bets, with the cut card coming - you survived that shoe. Had a nice win of just under 1800 for 2.25 hours - mostly heads up. Despite play conditions, dealer speed was atrocious averaging about 120 hph. Never came close to showing full spread, despite having opportunity to do so. My max bet was $250 - I'll save the cannons for my last day here, since I don't want my conditions to deteriorate. This is a smaller community, simply not used to winning players. The point is making a decision between long term shearing vs. Short term skinning. Different strokes for different folks.

[Freightman]

Hey Freighter. Shoot me an email when you get a chance. I have a 6th grade question that would be rendered as boring and useless here. Still, I'd value your opinion.

Sent