See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: HiLo with Ace side count

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    HiLo with Ace side count

    I am relatively new into this ( 6 months or so). I only play Double Deck ($25 Table Min) with H17, no RSA, Double on any 2 cards, Double after Split, no surrender, Pen 65-70%. I use Hilo with Ace side count. So far I am using Ace count for two things:

    1. Insurance decision - I ignore Aces for Insurance decision. If I have a running count of 4 with 4 Aces gone and 1.5 Deck left my TC for insurance decision is (4+4)/1.5=5.3 and if this count is >3 I buy full insurance on all hands. Is this index correct?

    2. Max Bet Decision - If I have a high count but remaining Aces are less than average (1 per 1/4 deck etc.) then I do not put max bet. On a monster count, I will always put my max bet but I am talking about borderline decisions. Is this correct?

    What are other uses of Ace side count with HiLo counting?

    No pain, no gain.

  2. #2


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "1. Insurance decision - I ignore Aces for Insurance decision. If I have a running count of 4 with 4 Aces gone and 1.5 Deck left my TC for insurance decision is (4+4)/1.5=5.3 and if this count is >3 I buy full insurance on all hands. Is this index correct?"

    Yes. And so is the methodology. Think the insurance index might be +2.8 when using ace adjustment in Hi-Lo, but little matter.

    Don

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by vhalen View Post


    What are other uses of Ace side count with HiLo counting?

    It would be wiser to use an ace-neutral count if you are already side-counting the aces because it increases playing efficiency. You could take the Aces and deuces out of your count altogether. And use that count for playing decisions, which is Hi-opt 1. Then you keep a balanced side-count of Aces against deuces, and add it in to decide your betting strategy--which is the Hi-Lo part. Hi-Lo ace side count isn't any less effort than that, IMO, and significantly less gain.
    Last edited by Boz; 06-17-2016 at 06:13 PM.

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    As I think Don S. and some others have mentioned, side counting Aces with HiLo matters little. I occasionally do it but most of the time, for cover purposes, I am chatting with players, dealers, pit folks and such so the simple HiLo with I-18 suits me. It occasionally is upsetting when you get an Ace on a double down 11 but there is no reason to believe that counting would have helped (for all I know the deck could be Ace poor and I still got the Ace).

    For those of us who play rated and long sessions, the act is more important for longevity.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Boz View Post
    It would be wiser to use an ace-neutral count if you are already side-counting the aces because it increases playing efficiency. You could take the Aces and deuces out of your count altogether. And use that count for playing decisions, which is Hi-opt 1. Then you keep a balanced side-count of Aces against deuces, and add it in to decide your betting strategy--which is the Hi-Lo part. Hi-Lo ace side count isn't any less effort than that, IMO, and significantly less gain.
    Thanks for the advice. I have been thinking of switching to Hi-Opt-I but will wait until next year. Are the indices similar? I am using over 70 indices with Hi-Lo. Since I only play pitch games Hi-Opt-I makes more sense for better PE. More accurate insurance bet saved me a lot of money and drew attention as well.
    No pain, no gain.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by vhalen View Post
    Thanks for the advice. I have been thinking of switching to Hi-Opt-I but will wait until next year. Are the indices similar? I am using over 70 indices with Hi-Lo. Since I only play pitch games Hi-Opt-I makes more sense for better PE. More accurate insurance bet saved me a lot of money and drew attention as well.
    I was doing Hi-opt 1/Hi-Lo for a little while. I used the same exact indices as hi-lo. There's probably a couple small differences, but they are very similar.

    Level 2 count is another option for more power.
    Last edited by Boz; 06-18-2016 at 01:36 AM.

  7. #7


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    "1. Insurance decision - I ignore Aces for Insurance decision. If I have a running count of 4 with 4 Aces gone and 1.5 Deck left my TC for insurance decision is (4+4)/1.5=5.3 and if this count is >3 I buy full insurance on all hands. Is this index correct?"

    Yes. And so is the methodology. Think the insurance index might be +2.8 when using ace adjustment in Hi-Lo, but little matter.

    Don
    I need some further clarification. Here is an excerpt from a post on the "other site" from a very reputable poster regarding the Ace side count:

    "in several notable and quite significant plays undealt aces function as small cards; the ADJUSTMENT to the HiLo RC for these plays is thus -2.
    These plays are: insurance; double 11; 16 vs all dealer cards."

    Following the above advice, if you have a running count of 4 with 4 aces gone after only 1/2 deck has been dealt, then there is a deficit of two aces and you would add 4 to the running count (2 deficit aces x 2) for purposes of the insurance decision. So (coincidentally) you get the same answer as in your example.

    However, if one deck has been dealt and 4 aces have come out, then there would be no adjustment to the Hi-Lo running count because there is no surplus or deficit of aces at that point. The proposed methodology in the OP would add 4 to the running count? I don't think that would be correct.

  8. #8


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    You only added four because of the deficit of two aces, in the example. No one was proposing to ALWAYS add four, no matter how many decks were dealt. For insurance purposes, the ace should be counted as a small card, but Hi-Lo counts it the "wrong" way, as a high card. So, you have to reverse the -1 count and replace it with +1, for each surplus or deficit ace, for insurance purposes. If you're two aces short in the remaining decks, you're more likely to want to take insurance, so you add 2 x 2 = 4 to the RC.

    In your second example, if you have the right number of aces for the number of decks remaining, you make no adjustment to the RC for insurance purposes. Clear?

    Don

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    You only added four because of the deficit of two aces, in the example. No one was proposing to ALWAYS add four, no matter how many decks were dealt. For insurance purposes, the ace should be counted as a small card, but Hi-Lo counts it the "wrong" way, as a high card. So, you have to reverse the -1 count and replace it with +1, for each surplus or deficit ace, for insurance purposes. If you're two aces short in the remaining decks, you're more likely to want to take insurance, so you add 2 x 2 = 4 to the RC.

    In your second example, if you have the right number of aces for the number of decks remaining, you make no adjustment to the RC for insurance purposes. Clear?Don
    Yes - clear to me - thanks. I just wasn't sure that the OP understood the concept of adjusting the running count by +/-2 for each deficit or surplus ace. In his example, he didn't describe the rationale for his +4 adjustment. It appeared to me that he might be thinking that he had to add back +1 for every ace that he had included in his running count.

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I am only adjusting when Ace density is higher or lower than normal. But I was not using this adjustment for " ..double 11; 16 vs all dealer cards." Going forward I will use this adjustment for double 11 and 16 vs all dealer cards as well.
    No pain, no gain.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ace side w/HiLo?
    By RoadWarrior in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-18-2014, 12:53 PM
  2. privador: Same HILo count-is there any diffrence?
    By privador in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-05-2007, 11:28 AM
  3. nerodog: HiLo w/ Ace Side Count for SD
    By nerodog in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-26-2002, 04:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.