I currently play hi-opt 2 with ace side count which I have become very comfortable with. Lately I've been reading alot about how small the advantage actually is over hi-low while playing 8 deck games (atlantic city) is this true?
I currently play hi-opt 2 with ace side count which I have become very comfortable with. Lately I've been reading alot about how small the advantage actually is over hi-low while playing 8 deck games (atlantic city) is this true?
> I currently play hi-opt 2 with ace side count which I
> have become very comfortable with. Lately I've been
> reading alot about how small the advantage actually is
> over hi-low while playing 8 deck games (atlantic city)
> is this true?
Yes. The worse the game, the less difference the count makes. Not that HO2+A isn't a great system. But the real power of ace-neutral systems comes in their superior playing efficiency, and playing efficiency doesn't buy you all that much with the huge spreads and aggressive Wonging you use when you are playing shoe games.
For grinding away at shoes RPC is recommended. The system tags are {-2,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2}. The indices are close enough to HO2 that you can use the same ones with little loss. You get the same power as HO2+A in a shoe game without any sidecount. But you can still sidecount aces if you want for insurance and play decisions. What I use the brainpower it frees up for, is ace sequencing.
In an EIGHT deck game ~ The Betting Correlation is FAR more important than the Playing Efficiency of the Count in question. I used the Zen Count (for Shoe Games) for about 20 yrs. It is truly excellent for that purpose.
Mostly I now play 2-deckers ~ so I use Hi-Opt II with a considerable number of indices. From time to time I play a 6 decker but I do not bother with Hi-Opt II - as it is a poor choice for that purpose. In 8 deck shoe games a rudimentary one-level count -- with a wide spread applied to deep penetration will outperform more advanced counts every time. A spread of 20-1 is the minimuym that I would consider. 30-1 I would prefer. The bets strategy is to play several units at Zero true counts and "off the top" and sp[read UP and DOWN from there.
indices reversed for: splitting 8,8 vs. T, 8,8 vs. 9, 3,3 vs. 7, and L S 17 v A
INSURANCE = +5;
H7710 = 16; Hit 7,7 versus dealer's T if true count < H7710
// 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T A
// hard standing table (stand if >= number, hit if < number)
5, 2, 0, -2, -2, .., .., .., .., .., // hard 12
-1, -3, -5, -8, -8, .., .., .., .., .., // hard 13
-6, -8,-10,-13,-13, .., .., .., 16, 24, // hard 14
-10,-13,-15,-20,-21, 25, 24, 16, 6, 18, // hard 15
-19,-21,-24,-..,-.., 25, 19, 9, 0, 16, // hard 16
-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-12) // hard 17
// soft standing table (stand if >= number, hit if < number)
-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-.., .., .., 2) // soft 18
// hard doubling table (double if >= number)
.., .., .., 25, 25, .., .., .., .., .., // hard 7
.., 22, 15, 10, 5, .., .., .., .., .., // hard 8
2, -2, -4, -8,-12, 10, 23, .., .., .., // hard 9
-17,-20,-22,-24,-..,-13, -9, -3, 15, 8, // hard 10
-24,-24,-..,-..,-..,-20,-14, -9, -8, 2) // hard 11
// soft doubling table (double if >= number)
.., 20, 11, 1, -3, .., .., // A,2
.., 21, 10, -3, -9, .., .., // A,3
.., 20, 1, -7,-17, .., .., // A,4
.., 14, -3,-10,-21, .., .., // A,5
11, -4, -9,-16,-22, .., .., // A,6
1, -3, -7,-11,-13, .., .., // A,7
17, 11, 7, 3, 2, .., .., // A,8
23, 18, 14, 11, 11, .., .., // A,9
.., 25, 22, 19, 18, .., ..) // A,T
splitting table for DAS (split if >= number, except reversals)
-6,-10,-14,-19,-..,-.., .., .., .., .., // 2,2
0,-15,-20,-24,-.., .., .., .., .., .., // 3,3
.., .., 13, -1, -5, .., .., .., .., .., // 4,4
.., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., // 5,5
-3, -6,-10,-15,-22, .., .., .., .., .., // 6,6
-16,-19,-21,-24,-..,-.., .., .., .., .., // 7,7
-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-..,-.., .., 7,-.., // 8,8
-5, -7, -9,-12,-13, 10,-16,-19, .., 8, // 9,9
23, 17, 13, 11, 10, .., .., .., .., .., // T,T
-23,-24,-24,-24,-..,-19,-16,-14,-15, -6) // A,A
Late surrender table (surrender if >= number)
.., .., .., 23, .., // surrender hard 12
.., .., 19, 11, 22, // surrender hard 13
.., 19, 9, 4, 8, // surrender hard 14
23, 11, 4, -1, 3, // surrender hard 15
22, 7, -1, -6, -4, // surrender hard 16
.., .., 25, 25, -7) // surrender hard 17
> I currently play hi-opt 2 with ace side count which I
> have become very comfortable with. Lately I've been
> reading alot about how small the advantage actually is
> over hi-low while playing 8 deck games (atlantic city)
> is this true?
Here is a comparison of the SCORE of popular counts used under AC playing conditions. 8D, 1.5D pen, S17, DAS, NS, 1-20 spread. Catch-22 indices were used. CVCX Online was the tool I used for generating these numbers.
Play-All-
Halves: 24.40
AO2 w/ Ace SC: 26.21
HO2 w/ Ace SC: 26.67
High-Low: 22.70
RPC: 25.28
Zen: 21.16
Wong In/Out at +2 (+1 for the case of High-Low)-
Halves: 40.03
AO2 w/ Ace SC: 41.24
HO2 w/ Ace SC: 42.12
High-Low: 37.70
RPC: 41.32
Zen: 35.63
So it appears that Hi-Opt II with the ace sidecount is indeed the strongest count for Atlantic City rules and conditions. RPC is a close second with no sidecount needed. As the data shows, getting in and out of these games at the right times is so much more important than what count you use. You owe AC nothing and there is no reason to play negative EV hands there.
With all due respect to Zen and its users, this is not a count you want to bring to Atlantic City's miserable playing conditions, where you have to spread like a sorority girl at a med school keg party to make your time even worthwhile. Take it to a nice DD game!
The ZEN count advantage is that it is easier to use. It requires no side-count of Aces. MOST of the time your (shoe game) side-count will be insufficiently askew to alter your wager size, or influence your doubling down on TEN, etc. -- yet it does not totally ignore the value of Aces.
notice here with aggressive wonging, complex counts will yield much better results.
and the truth is, the better the penetration, the more complex counts will get better results.
they pick up more favourable situations than simple counts.
and they dont miss judge unfav situations as favourable as often simple counts at the last couple of rounds.
for those who can manage the 2 or 3 level counts. so long as u can do it without mistakes, stick with it.
if BS tells u to double, u'd double
if conditions tells u its bad u'd bet less
if count goes up u'd bet more
then why not use a better system when it tells u that u'd win more???? (of cos once again provided that ur capable without errors)
after years of counting i still have problems side aces while chatting with every1 around the table that's why i have chosen halves over AO2 (which i used to use)
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks