1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
bjanalyst
Again, you are insisting that a level 2 HO2 count system as the primary count is simpler than the KO primary count.
I said nothing of the sort. To rephrase to hope you can understand this time. You started with a low ceiling of how far added complexity can increase results by started with a simple count. You make it so complex it is ridiculous and still haven't outperformed the simplest version of Hiopt2/ASC, but are using something far more complicated than Hiopt2/ASC. YOUR system, not KO, is much much harder than basic Hiopt2/ASC. If you start with Hiopt2 and add added complexity from there you will see the same type of improvement you got for KO. The difference is you start with the effectiveness of your finished product and add on from there. The people you based your work on as you have sited earlier say the benefits of side counting is proportional to the strength of the starting count (From Alienated's research). If you are going to the trouble of side counting, why would you start with a relatively weak count when you know before you start the effort would have its largest return by starting with a strong count? So you started wrong and the best you can do is something about comparable to where you would have started if you used a relatively strong count to start adding things to.
Excerpts from Selective Side Counting with HOII (Long)
Previously posted By: Alienated:
"There would appear to be several benefits of using a higher level primary count, such as Hi Opt II with selective side counting, rather than a simple primary count, say Hi Opt I, while always side counting: (a) less side-count adjustments are required, since Hi Opt II (like other good higher level systems) is already quite strong on hit/stand decisions versus a small dealer upcard; b) less effort must be expended in side counting, given that the key denominations will often come out reasonably ‘normally’; c) losing the side-count information as a result of distractions will prove less costly, because the primary count alone will still enable strong play for most decisions.
...
Gains from side counting will be greatest for those decisions where: (i) the gains from perfect play are high and (ii) the primary Hi Opt II count performs poorly, thereby leaving considerable scope for improvement. Gains from perfect play depend upon volatility (as indicated by the sum of squares of the EORs) and the average disadvantage from violating basic strategy (Griffin’s ‘m’), as outlined by Griffin, pp.28-29. It is for situations where volatility is high, m is small, and Hi Opt II is weakly correlated with the EORs that the scope for improvement through side counting will be at its greatest.
The following two tables present approximations of the strategy gains that are attainable with ‘perfect play’ and ‘actual play’ using the Hi Opt II primary count. The table for perfect play is similar to Griffin’s p.30 chart except that, in the present case, the depth of dealing is always fixed at n = 20 cards remaining. This method is inferior to Griffin’s approach, which involves an averaging procedure to mimic the effects of strategy variation at different points in the deck. However, since the present concern is with the relative, not absolute, worth of various side counts and plays, this simplification will hopefully not cost too much.
Table 1. Perfect Play (1000th of percent)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
-------------------------------------------------------------------
16 10 9 7 6 12 34 27 32 142 11
15 19 17 13 11 14 17 12 16 72 11
14 29 25 20 15 18 11 4 5 75 9
13 47 42 32 24 30 2 1 6 50 5
12 33 39 44 35 43 1 8 27 2
11 1 1 1 7 9 11 39 19
10 3 2 2 1 1 9 12 16 29 13
Ins 262
Total Strategy Gain = 1608.147
-------------------------------------------------------------------
___
Table 2a. HOII Gains (1000th of percent)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
-------------------------------------------------------------------
16 8 6 4 2 4 5 6 14 106 10
15 15 12 8 5 7 2 2 6 55 6
14 24 20 15 11 13 2 1 2 24 3
13 38 34 26 19 22 3 1
12 23 32 40 31 36
11 1 1 3 6 8 33 18
10 2 1 1 6 10 14 20 12
Ins 239
Total Strategy Gain = 1077.741
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2b. Percentage Contribution to HOII Gains
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
-------------------------------------------------------------------
16 .71 .57 .37 .22 .41 .42 .52 1.34 9.82 .92
15 1.39 1.11 .77 .51 .61 .18 .23 .59 5.12 .55
14 2.22 1.85 1.40 1.01 1.17 .18 .07 .18 2.27 .25
13 3.51 3.11 2.44 1.76 2.06 .31 .05
12 2.14 2.99 3.69 2.88 3.30
11 .08 .06 .05 .02 .01 .28 .52 .73 3.07 1.64
10 .17 .14 .10 .04 .03 .54 .91 1.34 1.83 1.09
Ins 2.21"
HOII Primary Count Strategy shortage from perfect play (1000th of percent):
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
KEY PLAYS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
16 2 3 3 4 8 29 21 18 38 1
15 4 5 5 6 7 15 10 10 17 5
14 5 5 5 4 5 9 3 3 51 6
13 9 8 6 5 8 2 1 6 47 4
12 10 7 4 4 7 0 8 1 27 2
11 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 3 6 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 9 1
Ins 23
Total Gains Difference from perfect play = 530.406
So extensive research was done showing that if you want to side count you should first learn a strong playing count system so the effort required is smaller to get a larger gain, yet you did just the opposite of the first rule of constructing a strong side counted system and started with a weak playing count. If you started with a strong playing count system like almost any ace neutral and/or multilevel system the effort required side counting would be less and the rewards would be more.
Bookmarks