Originally Posted by
Three
You compare you count to Hiopt2/ASC with limited indices. People don't put a ton of effort into learning to master a high level count with side counts and decide a few hours learning all the indices isn't worth the effort. Yet you compare your count to HIopt2/ASC with way less indices than any Hiopt2/ASC user would use. Which brings up the question of why don't you use a lot more indices.
With the ease to learn and use Hiopt2/ASC compared to your count and the ease to implement it, why would anyone want to use your count even if it does outperform Hiopt2/ASC.
Simpler and much more powerful beats more complicated and less powerful hands down.
First as far as I am concerned the level 2 HO2 with ASC is VERY, VERY, VERY difficult which is why ho blackjack teams uses it. Level 2 counts are terrible with the HO2 counting the 4's and 5s as +2 and the Tens as -2 and 3, 4, 6 7 and +1 and they all must be done at the same time. The AA89mTc is also level 2 but is counted separately after cards are on the table and the only rank counted as +2 is the Ace where you just cancel two Tens for each Ace seen and you are only looking at Aces, 8's, 9s' and Tens. it is extremely easy to keep and the 5m7c is even easier to keep and both are EXACT as they do not depend on estimation decks played as Adef does. If you were just going to add one side count, then probably add 5m7c to KO which would be very easy and help with betting and some playing strategy and could easily be taught to others. There is plenty of time in the slow moving shoe game to keep side counts and especially the 5m7c side count which counts only two ranks.
So to me your statement:
With the ease to learn and use Hiopt2/ASC compared to your count and the ease to implement it, why would anyone want to use your count even if it does outperform Hiopt2/ASC.
does not hold true FOR ME. I consider the HO2 with ASC very difficult to keep. you think it is easy to keep. So we will leave it at that. We both have different ideas of what is easy and hard.
As far as more indices to add, I already addressed that issue. I calculated mainly positive indices for my KO system because I back count. I did not bother calculating negative indices because I never do play all. That is why my system beat HO2 with back counting but not with play all. So I said I would calculate negative indices and give to Gronbog to add to m KO system for those players who do play all.
And I will not repeat again here, but simulations show POWER which is only one of the five criteria I mentioned in choosing a count system. You must look at all five criteria I mentioned previously, not just power which is only one of the five criteria.
And I believe once I add negative indices, my KO system should beat the HO2 w ASC for the play all game also. And when LS is added, the KO system will smash the HO2 w ASC.
Bookmarks