Help...Need Hiopt2 ASC deviations.

**Freightman** · 10-03-2024, 02:00 PM

Not exactly. Although Hi-Lo has a better BC (0.9621 vs. 0.9172), the PE of HO2 makes the difference (0.7554 vs. 0.5553).

I think you are mixing the playing efficiency of hi opt 2 of .75 with ASC against the playing efficiency of hi opt 2 without ASC - which of course would be demonstrably less.

**DSchles** · 10-03-2024, 02:01 PM

Note to all: It's rather foolish to play count systems other than in the manner they were intended to be used. Hi-Opt II is an ace-neutral system. As such, you either side count the aces for betting purposes or you find a different system. Not side counting cripples the system, which, when used properly, is the most powerful of them all.

Don

**Cacarulo** · 10-03-2024, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

I think you are mixing the playing efficiency of hi opt 2 of .75 with ASC against the playing efficiency of hi opt 2 without ASC - which of course would be demonstrably less.

Nope, the PE is without the ASC.

Cac

**Freightman** · 10-03-2024, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

Note to all: It's rather foolish to play count systems other than in the manner they were intended to be used. Hi-Opt II is an ace-neutral system. As such, you either side count the aces for betting purposes or you find a different system. Not side counting cripples the system, which, when used properly, is the most powerful of them all.

Don

This is of course, correct.

**Freightman** · 10-03-2024, 02:15 PM

I would also be willing to wager that most ace neutral systems players are making too many mistakes in the heat of battle. Those of course include the revision of RC to quickly adjust TC round by round accurately. This of course would alter the effectiveness of the system as number of decks played increase - thereby mostly limiting its effectiveness to sd and dd pitch games.

Much easier to effectively navigate ASC for ace reckoned systems with the vaunted FBM ASC (for play decisions) simply by noting surplus or deficit with a quick glance to the discard tray.

**Freightman** · 10-03-2024, 02:21 PM

These comments remind me of a particular hand many years ago where the counter fellow next to me was a hi opt 1 player (and a nice guy). I whispered to him my reluctance to double 10 v 10 with a TC of around 3.5 (before I knew what risk averse was and was still playing hi lo). His comment whispered to me was - I would, there’s lots of aces left. So I did and scored the ace.

**pmc** · 10-03-2024, 02:51 PM

Hmmm reduced yes but hardly "crippled" if it's still on par with Hi-Lo as shown by my crude effort with CVCX and Cacarulo's more accurate numbers.

This is what I meant originally: say you use Hi-Lo and no one bats an eye. Say you contemplate using HO2 without an ASC in certain situations (equivalent power to Hi-Lo!) and people start to get a little fevered for (in my opinion) no good reason.

**DSchles** · 10-03-2024, 03:10 PM

It's just semantics at this point. If you want to equal Hi-Lo, then use Hi-Lo!! Or use a dozen other systems that equal or outperform it. The last thing I'd ever dream of doing would be to so weaken a level-2 system as to make it equal to Hi-Lo in performance. What would be the point of that?

Don

**Power** · 10-03-2024, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by pmc

Aside from that I never understand this "don't bother with Hi-Opt 2" stuff.

Why?

It's a strong count. With an ASC it's very strong indeed. An ASC isn't too hard for 1D or 2D so, if you want to, practice it, use it and benefit.

If doing the same for 4D, 6D or 8D is too hard drop the Ace side count!

Using full indices (which is, again, just a matter of learning, repetition and practice) it's still a good strong count and, in my opinion, the tags are also slightly easier to count than those of AO2 / Zen.

I feel the same. I'm trying to make this a job. I'm putting in about 30 to 50 hours a week. Traveling to many casinos... so why not be the best I can. As long as I can do it. Hi low is super easy true. If I go once a week etc or less why bother going level 2 etc.
Ubzen2 was easy for me yet I just didn't get the wins. Yes I'm sure it's just variance or bad luck. So I'm now going to hiopt2.
Yes it seems easy to ASC 6 decks... yet it's not lol. So I just go to high lo in 6D. I mostly play single or DD. Unless you guys think hiopt2 NO Asc is better 6 deck then hi-lo? I've read many mixed post on that one haha.

Thank you Everyone for such great replies and help! Also so fast! Anymore info is always appreciated too. <3

**Power** · 10-03-2024, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Cacarulo

Hi Freightman,

PS: Of course, CAC2 is even better

[U][B]CAC2

Ok p1-16: 27.73

I've read about CAC2 in the main big forum and other post. I was thinking about getting it. It's only on the BJ verite app game I think? A update.

I forget is cac2 better for 6 deck and 2 deck? Switching back and forth? I'm going to go read up and it again. =)

**Sidecount** · 10-04-2024, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Freightman

These comments remind me of a particular hand many years ago where the counter fellow next to me was a hi opt 1 player (and a nice guy). I whispered to him my reluctance to double 10 v 10 with a TC of around 3.5 (before I knew what risk averse was and was still playing hi lo). His comment whispered to me was - I would, there’s lots of aces left. So I did and scored the ace.

Ace side-counts are the bomb. I had a 9 v. 2 hand tonight in a slight negative count that would be slighrly against doing the double. But with a lot of Aces left the decision tilted back to doubling and I naturally landed the ace and won the hand.

**One2Many** · 10-04-2024, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Freightman

I would also be willing to wager that most ace neutral systems players are making too many mistakes in the heat of battle. Those of course include the revision of RC to quickly adjust TC round by round accurately. This of course would alter the effectiveness of the system as number of decks played increase - thereby mostly limiting its effectiveness to sd and dd pitch games.

Much easier to effectively navigate ASC for ace reckoned systems with the vaunted FBM ASC (for play decisions) simply by noting surplus or deficit with a quick glance to the discard tray.

This is true. Also whats true is, is the rather crude method we use for betting when side-counting aces.. Even, if your an ace using this method its far from perfect (esp. when doing it with multiple decks)..With DD it can be done pretty efficiently if you know how to adjust your RC accordingly...The Surplus or Shortage of Aces makes a huge difference and theres a little more to it than simply adjusting your RC. Even in pitch games an ace-reckoned system is probably and generally more accurate. If you can find a way to use an ace reckoned system with the playing efficiency of a non ace reckoned system then that would probably be the way to go.

**Cacarulo** · 10-04-2024, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by One2Many

This is true. Also whats true is, is the rather crude method we use for betting when side-counting aces.. Even, if your an ace using this method its far from perfect (esp. when doing it with multiple decks)..With DD it can be done pretty efficiently if you know how to adjust your RC accordingly...The Surplus or Shortage of Aces makes a huge difference and theres a little more to it than simply adjusting your RC. Even in pitch games an ace-reckoned system is probably and generally more accurate. If you can find a way to use an ace reckoned system with the playing efficiency of a non ace reckoned system then that would probably be the way to go.

It is true that keeping a side count of aces using the traditional method is quite cumbersome and prone to errors, especially in multiple decks.
Due to this difficulty, I have developed an alternative side count method that is much more precise and, in my opinion, much easier to manage.
The description can be found in the CAC2-Enhanced document. It is not public.

Sincerely,
Cac