Hi-Opt II Charts

Anyone know where I can get the complete index for Hi-OptII? I have Blackwood's book, but it only has some of the adjustments....

Suggestion - ZEN not HO2

Despite Blackwood's endorsement, HO2 is NOT ideal for today's game... even as far back as '86 Uston referred to HO2 and similar Ace-neutral-adjustment schemes as being "obsolete."

Therefore, I recommend ZEN, not requiring Ace side-count-adjustment.

Tags comparison (2-A)

HO2: 11221100-20
ZEN: 11222100-2-1

ZEN complete indices are available for 1D, 1/2D, 1/3D, or 1/4D TC calibration. zg

Regarding ZEN

I have been playing Hi-Opt I for quite awhile. I typically play shoe games because I play at AC frequently. I read your article and you mentioned that you had played the Hi-OptII System. I understand that these systems are not as powerful as they are in single and double deck games.

Ken Smith had posted a link on System Tag Values and Ratings and the difference between Hi-Opt I and the Zen are minimal where Hi-OptII seems practically the best.

Hi-Opt I - BC(.949) PE(.609) IC(.867) OSR (96.00)
ZEN - BC(.962) PE (.627) IC(.85) OSR (96.69)
Hi-Opt II - BC(.982) PE (.668) IC(.92) OSR (97.82)

OSR based on 1-4 spread...

The bottom line is that I want the best system for betting and playing efficiency. Learning a the indices and ace side is not a problem.

What I need to understand is what makes the HO2 system obsolete?

PokerJunky said:

What I need to understand is what makes the HO2 system obsolete?

Click to expand...

The problem with HO2 lies in the side-count accuracy - the means and and methods by which the Ace-density is factored into the betting accuracy is typically insufficient - resulting in harder work to -at best- accomplish the same net gain of a good Ace-reckoned level2 system, like ZEN.

Thus, to get full published performance from HO2 it is not adequate to simply estimate relative Ace-density per 1/4D as advised by HO2's developer Humble, Blackwood, and others.

The above insufficency is described by Snyder here and is a wake-up call for anyone who mistakenly beleives that HO2 is superior in real-world application -http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/sdcnt.htm

After you have read and understood the above essay, then you may read Snyder's first analysis of ZEN published in '81 -
http://blackjackforumonline.com/content/hundred.htm

Some may say that '81 was long before the SCORE comparisons were made, BUT the SCORE comparisons between ZEN and HO2 ASSUME full complete side-count conversion accuracy, which as I say is a non sequitur, whereas a SCORE comparison between say HiLo and ZEN shows a valid increase in gain.

Notwithstanding the above, given that you have been playing HO1, you might be best served by merely switching to HiLo, adding more indices, avoiding minus counts, and learning rudimentry shuffle/cut-off tracking so that you can recognize easy to exploit shuffles. zg

Rudimentry shuffle/cut-off tracking

I will read the above mentioned essays. Thanks for the information.

With regards to rudimentry shuffle/cut-off tracking, any good references available that I can review to learn this?

PokerJunky said:

With regards to rudimentry shuffle/cut-off tracking, any good references available that I can review to learn this?

Click to expand...

1) Start here, page 12 -
(Dead link: http://cardcounter.com/Interview_Zen_Grifter.pdf)

2) Then here -
(Dead link: http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=343)

3) Then consider buying (in this order) Malmuth's BJ Essays, GeoC's Shuffle Tracking for Beginners, and Arnold Snyder's Shuffle Tracking Cookbook.

4) And you can also research Google search -Shuffle Tracking Discussions
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=shuffle+tracking&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&btnG=Google+Search&meta=site=groups

zg

Stuffle Tracking For Imbeciles by Sonny

Stuffle Tracking For Imbeciles - Part 1
(Dead link: http://www.cardcounter.com/best.pl?noframes;read=18)
Stuffle Tracking For Imbeciles - Part 2
(Dead link: http://www.cardcounter.com/best.pl?noframes;read=17)

best system

If you are lucky enough to find casinos that deal good single or double deck blackjack, then Hi-Opt II is far from obsolete. It is the best system, hands down.

Unfortunately most clubs deal shoe games today, so the recommendation in my book is for players to use Hi-Opt systems for handheld games, but either Hi-Lo or the Zen for shoe games.

If you do want to pursue an advanced system and want more accurate index numbers, I suggest you use Casino Verite to calculate those.

Back in 'the day' I used HO2 and kept a side-count of As and 7s and used a multi-parameter play-index adjustment for those factors, primarily for the stiffs. zg

Kevin Blackwood said:

If you do want to pursue an advanced system and want more accurate index numbers, I suggest you use Casino Verite to calculate those.

Click to expand...

Kevin, he's your fan... just give him the damn index numbers! zg

Ps - PJunky, IF you were going to play in strictly high-quality/pene handhelds, ZEN with a side-count of 7s would still beat HO2 w/ a side of Aces.. BUT its all moot, go with HiLo.

Kevin Blackwood said:

If you are lucky enough to find casinos that deal good single or double deck blackjack, then Hi-Opt II is far from obsolete. It is the best system, hands down.

Unfortunately most clubs deal shoe games today, so the recommendation in my book is for players to use Hi-Opt systems for handheld games, but either Hi-Lo or the Zen for shoe games.

If you do want to pursue an advanced system and want more accurate index numbers, I suggest you use Casino Verite to calculate those.

Click to expand...

Howdee Kevin. Welcome aboard!

Thanks Zeng and Kevin for the input. All I play is 6 to 8 decks games in AC, therefore I will look into HI-Lo or Zen.

I'm looking for both high playing efficiency and betting correlation, so I'm leaning toward Zen. I see that Zen has a higher playing efficiency than Hi-Lo, so if I do find a favorable single or double deck game I can use the best system and use it for my multi-deck games.

Thanks for the help.

PokerJunky said:

I see that Zen has a higher playing efficiency than Hi-Lo, so if I do find a favorable single or double deck game I can use the best system and use it for my multi-deck games.

Click to expand...

Just remember - playing a little longer and a little faster will in itself produce more statistical gain than playing the strongest system. Add to that being able to differentiate extra-favorable conditions, etc. ameliorates any need for the so-called "superior" system. Look at it this way - most of the best players in the world do NOT use HO2, for the very reasons stated. zg

Maybe i missed subject, but it is simmilar so there is no reason for opening new. I am playing Hi-opt 1 european rules NH , and i have indexes for american rules , but where i can get indexes for NH ( not to by a book, i mean is there online something ) ?

misacar said:

Maybe i missed subject, but it is simmilar so there is no reason for opening new. I am playing Hi-opt 1 european rules NH , and i have indexes for american rules , but where i can get indexes for NH ( not to by a book, i mean is there online something ) ?

Click to expand...

Just don't double 10 or A against 10 or A.

What else? Ken, anybody? zg

No , there is no split 88 vs dealers 10 or A, also no double 11 vs 10, and no split AA vs A - and this is difference only in basic strategy. With indexes i think it's different for a lot of players hands vs dealers 10 or A .

You should be able to find the answers you need in Stanford Wong's book. If you don't have it someone here can look it up for you.

Actually, I haven't seen indexes for an ENHC game either online or in a book. They would probably need to be custom-generated with software.

The following would be proximate-correct and add about .30 to the OTT housEdge for count bet sizing. AND Misacar, strongly recommend that you switch to HiLo! zg

Don't double 10 or 11 against 10 or A.
Don't split 88 vs dealers 10 or A, or AA vs 10 or A

Wong says in Ch. 7 that you should be less willing to wager extra money when the dealer shows 10 or ace (this was obvious) but that hit/stand decisions are not affected. These changes to BS and indices only apply if you lose ALL bets to a natural. At the casino I play at the dealers don't take a hole card but you only lose your original bet to a natural so its identical to hole card play. Another point is there are no changes to BS if the dealer shows anything other than an ace or 10.

BS, if you lose all to a natural, is to split A/A against a 10 but other wise do not double or split against a 10 or ace. The only other consideration is whether or not to double 11 vs dealers 10 and thats when the count is 4 or greater. Furthermore these changes are independent of whether the dealer hits or stands on S17. These rule changes, as expected, have a negative effect on your expected hourly earning.

I forgot to mention that index # I gave you is for hi-lo and halves but would probably work for your counting method as well. And though BS says to split A/A vs 10, if you're interested the index # for that decision is -6.