Marlin: message for don

[Marlin]

I was currently scanning Revere's playing blackjack as a business, and the last section of the book he talks about other counting systems at the time. He basically ridicules the hi-opt1 and the hi-opt2 as being inferior to his rpc and rapc counts. He also maintains that he used this hi-opt1 in 1968 before Humble, and discarded it because of many flaws in it.
y question is "was he for real or was this mainly a pissing contest between he and Humble?
I read your bja2 and it shows that hi-opt2 is a stronger count. Now I am beginning to rethink what really is the best for shoes and or dd games. Thanks in advance for your response.

[Parker]

Revere had a personal vendetta against Lance Humble because Humble (a former student of Revere's) had the nerve to develop his own systems and promote them. Even worse, they were better than Revere's, and Revere probably knew it. Hence he spends most of a chapter trashing Humble and his systems. While undoubtedly a genius, Revere was a shady character who had no problem with backstabbing his (former) friends.

Playing Blackjack as a Business is a classic, but it is badly dated. All the sims were run on dinosaur mainframes. The PC in front of you has many times the computing power of these things. You can trust the math in Blackjack Attack.

[Don Schlesinger]

Not much I can add to Parker's excellent and accurate response except to say that Hi-Lo (Revere's plus-minus) probably does outperform Hi-Opt I under many circumstances, as can be seen in BJA3. But Hi-Opt II is an entirely different story, and, with a side count of aces, it is superior to all of Revere's counts.

Don

[ES]

Revere's calculations show that his +/- count has a lower "average percent of error" than Hi-Opt I or Hi-Opt II. This "average percent of error" is betting correlation, which is an important parameter of any card counting system. The Revere plus/minus count counts the ace as a high count. The Hi-Opts do not count the ace; they recommend a side count of aces, especially for bet sizing. Ace-reckoned systems have higher betting correlations than ace-neutral systems. The flip side is that ace-neutral systems have highr playing efficiencies than ace-reckoned systems. This is because the ace is a component of a natural and thus acts as a high card for betting. The ace can act as a high card and benefit the player, e.g. it is a good catch when the player doubles with 9 or 10 or splits 8s or 9s. It can also act as a low card, e.g. when the dealer hits 12-16.

I started with Revere's book and bought his Advanced Plus/Minus System for $25. It is a good system. Compare systems by simulating the game and conditions under which you play and comparing their win percentages (Expected Values) or better yet their SCOREs.

[Cacarulo]

> Not much I can add to Parker's excellent and
> accurate response except to say that Hi-Lo
> (Revere's plus-minus) probably does
> outperform Hi-Opt I under many
> circumstances, as can be seen in BJA3. But
> Hi-Opt II is an entirely different story,
> and, with a side count of aces, it is
> superior to all of Revere's counts.

Well, Hi-Opt II outperforms Hi-Lo even WITHOUT a side count of aces. I've posted some sims showing this. OTOH, I haven't seen a single sim in which Hi-Lo outperformed Hi-Opt I/Ace.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Sun Runner]

> Well, Hi-Opt II outperforms Hi-Lo even WITHOUT a side count of aces.

As well it should; I should get some bang for the Level 2 buck.

> OTOH, I haven't seen a single sim in which Hi-Lo outperformed Hi-Opt I/Ace.

Again, seems like an unfair compare. Your own 6D sim shows Hi-Lo/A besting Hi-Opt I/A.

[Cacarulo]

> As well it should; I should get some bang
> for the Level 2 buck.

The point here is that despite the lower BC of Hi-Opt II (without a SC of aces) it can outperform one with a higher BC as is the case of Hi-Lo. Practically all the gain comes from Insurance.

> Again, seems like an unfair compare. Your
> own 6D sim shows Hi-Lo/A besting Hi-Opt I/A.

Yes that's true. I mentioned it because Hi-Opt I is always played with a side count of aces.
Apples to apples Hi-Lo/A is superior to Hi-Opt I/A and so is Hi-Lo against Hi-Opt I.

Sincerely,
Cac

[ES]

> I started with Revere's book and bought his
> Advanced Plus/Minus System for $25. It is a
> good system.

I bought "The World's Greatest Blackjack Book," which contains Hi-Opt indices -6 to +6 when it came out. It also has indices for early surrender, which was then available in Atlantic City, and for splitting 10s, which are on in Revere's booklet. I switched to Hi-Opt I. I eventually switched to Wong's High-Low.

[Ouchez]

> I was currently scanning Revere's playing
> blackjack as a business, and the last
> section of the book he talks about other
> counting systems at the time. He basically
> ridicules the hi-opt1 and the hi-opt2 as
> being inferior to his rpc and rapc counts.
> He also maintains that he used this hi-opt1
> in 1968 before Humble, and discarded it
> because of many flaws in it.
> y question is "was he for real or was
> this mainly a pissing contest between he and
> Humble?
> I read your bja2 and it shows that hi-opt2
> is a stronger count. Now I am beginning to
> rethink what really is the best for shoes
> and or dd games. Thanks in advance for your
> response.

and he is the *Real Deal*. By that I mean he "Talks the talk and walks the walk". And besides that he is a GC'er who comes HERE to get the REAL Masters to answer his questions.

Strength And Honor,
Ouchez.