Which Counting Methods should I USE? ( 2DECKS)

[mofungoo]

All things considered HIOPT II is the best overall system, Brh I(true) is the best ace reckoned system and Brh I or Brh II are the best running count systems for shoe games. I used S17 games as I don't see why anyone would play H17 unless it was a pitch game. HILO is at the bottom of productivity for shoe games. The ease of use comes at too high a cost for people capable of more with ease.

There is no question that HiOpt II is the highest performing system, overall, as it should be. It is a level 2 count that requires an ace side count and is considerably harder to implement than level 1 ace-reckoned counts, particularly in shoe games. However, Hilo leads the pack in level 1 counts when used for 2 decks or more according to the original SCORE article in the summer 1999 Blackjack Forum magazine, besting KO and HiOpt I in those games. When back counting a 5/6 S17 DAS LS game using a 1-12 spread Hilo SCORES 90.21 while HiOpt II SCORES 102.97, about 12 1/2% higher. I can live with that.

[seriousplayer]

Heads up play 2 deck/0.5 cut off, H17, DAS:
HIOPT I(SC) full indices heads up $81.59/100 hands, N0 12334, CE $40.54
HILO full indices heads up $78.84/100 hands, N0 12564, CE $39.80

Not much of a difference but HILO is not on top.

Thank You for simulating that I was trying to tell people that HI-LO is not on the top for a long time but nobody wants to listen.

[Zach Black]

This is not really a fair comparison. If you add the ace side count to hi lo with adjustments to the RC the result is likely the same as hi opt 1 with the ace side count.

[seriousplayer]

This is not really a fair comparison. If you add the ace side count to hi lo with adjustments to the RC the result is likely the same as hi opt 1 with the ace side count.

May I ask that you simulate that and see. I am guessing if you add the aces side count to HI-LO it will make the BC= 0.9682, PE=0.61 and IC= 0.7601. HI-OPT I with a side count of aces has a BC= .96, PE= 0.6094 and IC=0.8498. HI-OPT I still lead HI-LO in IC!

[Zach Black]

I don't own the software now but think that's a good idea.

I ve read several posts on the GC archive on the subject of increasing hi lo PE with an asc beyond the obvious insurance adjustments. There are a number of match ups where the ace acts like a small card.

I ll do the sim but its likey a month out with my work schedule and the learning curve on cvcx.

[seriousplayer]

I don't own the software now but think that's a good idea.

I ve read several posts on the GC archive on the subject of increasing hi lo PE with an asc beyond the obvious insurance adjustments. There are a number of match ups where the ace acts like a small card.

I ll do the sim but its likey a month out with my work schedule and the learning curve on cvcx.

Do you want to do that(adding ace side counts) to other level 1 systems and see what the results are as well? Counts like Canfield expert, Sliver Fox, KISS II, KISSIII, KO, RED seven, etc,etc?

[seriousplayer]

How is this not a fair comparison. HIOPT I is used with a side count. That is the system. HILO is not used with a side count. That is the system. Comparing the 2 systems is only fair if you compare the 2 systems. If you weren't willing to side count aces you would not use HIOPT I. It is like saying comparing Zen to HILO isn't fair because Zen is a level 2 count. HILO gives up so much for simplicity it won't sim well against most other counts. It is just the way of it. If you are happy with HILO then don't worry about all the other counts that out produce it.

If you fully true counted the unbalanced counts (RED SEVEN,KO, REKO,KISS) with no aces side count I think it is safe to say that HI-LO's performance won't be as good.

[mofungoo]

Heads up play 2 deck/0.5 cut off, H17, DAS:
HIOPT I(SC) full indices heads up $81.59/100 hands, N0 12334, CE $40.54
HILO full indices heads up $78.84/100 hands, N0 12564, CE $39.80

Not much of a difference but HILO is not on top.

Schlesinger's SCORE article put Hilo slightly ahead in a 62/104 H17 DAS game.

[seriousplayer]

Schlesinger's SCORE article put Hilo slightly ahead in a 62/104 H17 DAS game.

I am suspecting that Schlesinger didn't simulate HI-OPT I with a ace side count in Blackjack Attack.

[mofungoo]

62/104 H17 DAS? does that mean they deal less than a deck or a deck and a quarter? I ran it for dealing to half a deck left 1-6 spread. PE becomes more important with penetration. 1 to 6 in short sessions is about what will be tolerated in most places so I thought it silly to rum for a larger spread. If his was for a larger spread the higher BC of HILO will improve in score.

Schlesinger gave several spreads in the original SCORE article. With a 1-6 spread Hilo still beats HiOpt I under the conditions given. With a 1-4 spread HiOpt edges HiLo by a SCORE of 30.28 to 30.23. Five cents! A friggin' nickel. Man, I'm gonna have to forget about HiLo and learn HiOpt I, I really need that nickel.

Seriously, there are very few conditions where HiOpt significantly HiLo. The extra effort of keeping an ASC just doesn't pay off here. All I see it doing is to increase opportunities for making errors.

[mofungoo]

I am suspecting that Schlesinger didn't simulate HI-OPT I with a ace side count in Blackjack Attack.

I don't know what was done in BJA, but in the original SCORE article in Blackjack Forum magazine summer 1999 that I quoted, all non ace reckoned counts side counted the ace. Let's see what Don had to say about HiOpt I in that article:

"Let us note, in passing, that Hi-Opt I has little to recommend for itself in that it requires both true counting and a side-count of aces for betting purposes. For the extra aggravation of having to ace-adjust for every bet we make, not to mention computing the true count, one would certainly demand that this level one count produce SCOREs superior to hi-lo and K-O. Unfortunately, it doesn't. "

He then goes on to say that if you are already proficient in HiOpt I there would be no reason to change to HiLo or KO, but there is no sense for a new player to choose it as an introduction to card counting. I won't argue with that assessment.

[seriousplayer]

Schlesinger gave several spreads in the original SCORE article. With a 1-6 spread Hilo still beats HiOpt I under the conditions given. With a 1-4 spread HiOpt edges HiLo by a SCORE of 30.28 to 30.23. Five cents! A friggin' nickel. Man, I'm gonna have to forget about HiLo and learn HiOpt I, I really need that nickel.

Seriously, there are very few conditions where HiOpt significantly HiLo. The extra effort of keeping an ASC just doesn't pay off here. All I see it doing is to increase opportunities for making errors.

It is not about switching count systems. What we are talking about is whether or not the standard Hi-Lo count is the best overall level 1 card counting system. The truth of the fact is that HI-LO does not beat every level one system out there. I do agree that HI-LO is a respectable count system but I never agree that HI-LO is the best overall card counting system. One problem I do see in Blackjack Attack is comparing HI-LO to the unbalanced count since it is not a true count to true count comparsions that is why it shows that HI-LO performs better than any level count out there. Could someone sim TKO to HI-LO when I say TKO I mean True Count it fully.

[mofungoo]

I see the issue. The numbers I ran were for play all. The numbers you quote from BJA3 are for wonging.

I didn't quote anything from BJA3, I don't even have that book. What are you talking about, wonging a 2D game? That's not what was done in the article I quoted, it was play all. I will reiterate Don's assessment of the HiOpt I and agree with what he said - not worth the added effort.