Absolute Best Counting Method for Double Deck?

[Automatic Monkey]

Really?

Also doesn't look right. The graph has HO2 without the ace sidecount far ahead of Zen, with the ace sidecount adding only a little bit after that. HO2 is a poor choice without an ace sidecount, and an excellent one with the ace sidecount. Are you sure you don't have the center and bottom lines reversed?

 

[iCountNTrack]

Also doesn't look right. The graph has HO2 without the ace sidecount far ahead of Zen, with the ace sidecount adding only a little bit after that. HO2 is a poor choice without an ace sidecount, and an excellent one with the ace sidecount. Are you sure you don't have the center and bottom lines reversed?

Well unless while you are saving the graph in CVCX the line colors switch around this is a correct sim. The statement you make about HO2 being a poor choice without an ace count holds valid for a 6 or 8 decks game where betting is more important, but not for a DD game with surrender, in this case HO2 shines. Why dont you run the sims if you cant take my word for it .

 

[psyduck]

Most probably you were not using optimal betting spread for each count but rather the same one you use for hi-lo.

I was talking the combined effect of PE and IC excluding BC. The BC of HiLo is already 97%.

 

[iCountNTrack]

I was talking the combined effect of PE and IC excluding BC. The BC of HiLo is already 97%.

I have no idea of what you are talking about, what does the PE, IC and BC have to do with a simulation.

 

[psyduck]

I have no idea of what you are talking about, what does the PE, IC and BC have to do with a simulation.

I wanted to find out which level 2 method offers better PE+IC than HiLo for the 6-deck game I play. What is so hard to understand?

 

[Deathclutch]

I wanted to find out which level 2 method offers better PE+IC than HiLo for the 6-deck game I play. What is so hard to understand?

PE and IC don't change with the game you're playing. Those numbers are based on the card tag values so almost every level 2 count will be higher.

 

[psyduck]

PE and IC don't change with the game you're playing. Those numbers are based on the card tag values so almost every level 2 count will be higher.

Let me try another way.

In theory, a level 2 count method should offer better PE and IC than HiLo. I wanted to know how much better for the shoe game I play. So I did simulation using flat betting to exclude the contribution of BC. I have not found a level 2 system that could outperform HiLo for the specific game I play.

 

[zengrifter]

Also doesn't look right. The graph has HO2 without the ace sidecount far ahead of Zen, with the ace sidecount adding only a little bit after that. HO2 is a poor choice without an ace sidecount, and an excellent one with the ace sidecount. Are you sure you don't have the center and bottom lines reversed?

I was thinking the same thing. Something not right... or I've been terribly mistaken for years.
Can someone else arrive at the same conclusion - that HO2 without Ace density count beats ZEN (RPC, Mentor, etc.?)
Jackson, SageFrog, anyone? And leave the surrender out. zg

[/QUOTE]

 

[FLASH1296]

This has been batted about for a couple of decades.

The4 final consensus (via sim's) is always the same.

There are only two (s) solid choices.

Hi-Opt II wins the photo-finish by a nose over Advanced Omega II

 

[zengrifter]

This has been batted about for a couple of decades.

The4 final consensus (via sim's) is always the same.

There are only two (s) solid choices.

Hi-Opt II wins the photo-finish by a nose over Advanced Omega II

First thing first - HO2 WITHOUT Ace density beats ZEN in typical 2D? zg

 

[Deathclutch]

First thing first - HO2 WITHOUT Ace density beats ZEN in typical 2D? zg

That's also very surprising to me as I thought without the side count the BC would be too much of a detriment. Can't argue with sims though, and I won't argue because that means it works better for me :laugh:

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Well unless while you are saving the graph in CVCX the line colors switch around this is a correct sim. The statement you make about HO2 being a poor choice without an ace count holds valid for a 6 or 8 decks game where betting is more important, but not for a DD game with surrender, in this case HO2 shines. Why dont you run the sims if you cant take my word for it .

Good idea.

SCOREs for your game parameters, 2 decks, 1-6 spread, DAS, H17, LS, 0.7 pen, (Let's keep it real.):

Full indices used. Spread auto-optimized by CVCX.

Balanced Zen: 73.03
HO2 with sidecount: 71.92
HO2 without sidecount: 66.47

The surrender rule slightly raises the EOR of the ace for the player, being he can take some of the power of the dealer's ace away by surrendering against it. This effect makes not counting the ace for betting ever a worse decision with the LS rule in play. And when we are getting into very high counts and their associated index plays, the ace starts to behave more like a high card than a low card for for playing decisions too, so the Zen counter doesn't lose much PE by counting it as half a 10.

Would it be too much to ask you to go back and correct your graph before you mislead the rookies into thinking they are better off using HO2 without a sidecount, than Zen?

 

[zengrifter]

Would it be too much to ask you to go back and correct your graph before you mislead the rookies into thinking they are better off using HO2 without a sidecount, than Zen?

Wait a second AM, the ICT sim comparison says it all, right?
I don't get it? I was thinking maybe the same betting scheme was used for all three trued for HO2... but then it wouldn't be true-SCOREd. What gives? Why did I ever switch from HO2 to ZEN? I could have just dropped the Ace count in 2D and been better off than I wound up with ZEN. What was I thinking? zg

 

[zengrifter]

Good idea.

SCOREs for your game parameters, 2 decks, 1-6 spread, DAS, H17, LS, 0.7 pen, (Let's keep it real.):

Full indices used. Spread auto-optimized by CVCX.

Balanced Zen: 73.03
HO2 with sidecount: 71.92
HO2 without sidecount: 66.47

Would it be too much to ask you to go back and correct your graph before you mislead the rookies into thinking they are better off using HO2 without a sidecount, than Zen?

Whoa! Now I'm even more confused... in the AM sim ZEN SCORE beat HO2 WITH Ace SC? Now you're talkin! z:laugh:g

 

[jack.jackson]

I dont care who or what wins, but here are my results. Full indices, no ace sidecount for ho2 and ao2. Original Zen, full indices

Optimal Bets, were taken right out of CVCX. And even though theirs +ev@+1, were not ramping till+3(?)

2D,H17,DAS,Ls

1ply,1:6,75%

Zen and ho2, have same betting ramps

+3/20
+4/30
+5/40
+6/40
+7/50
+8/60

Ao2

+3/20
+4/30
+5/30
+6/40
+7/50
+8/60

 

[zengrifter]

Oh, great. Now AO2 WITHOUT ASC is the strongest of all?
And here I've been telling people to swap out their A-9 tags to abandon AO2 for ZEN! zg

 

[jack.jackson]

ao2 and ho2 with ace side count

 

[bjcount]

Using the same rules as JJ mentions in the prior post, DD, H17, das, ls, 1-6, 1.5/2d here are my results using RPC RA generated indices, with a slight twist, both sims are using S17 indices.

Top Sim: RPC RA DD full indices, S17 indices, 1-6 opt spread developed by cvcx, not a canned sim.

Bottom Sim: RPC RA 6d S17 indices, same 1-6 spread as above.

I'm not seeing much reason at least for myself to switch to another strategy unless I was planning to play only DD full time. An 800 hand difference in N0 is about 8-10hrs play so a full timer can see some great improvements switching to HO2 w/ASC. Of course using the correct indices for the game your playing should be used.

BJC

Edit: I added the results of a ZEN RA DD sim I ran using indices generated for a S17 game but the same rules as above, 1-6 spread. Still very decent results comparable to RPC.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Good idea.

SCOREs for your game parameters, 2 decks, 1-6 spread, DAS, H17, LS, 0.7 pen, (Let's keep it real.):

Full indices used. Spread auto-optimized by CVCX.

Balanced Zen: 73.03
HO2 with sidecount: 71.92
HO2 without sidecount: 66.47

The surrender rule slightly raises the EOR of the ace for the player, being he can take some of the power of the dealer's ace away by surrendering against it. This effect makes not counting the ace for betting ever a worse decision with the LS rule in play. And when we are getting into very high counts and their associated index plays, the ace starts to behave more like a high card than a low card for for playing decisions too, so the Zen counter doesn't lose much PE by counting it as half a 10.

Would it be too much to ask you to go back and correct your graph before you mislead the rookies into thinking they are better off using HO2 without a sidecount, than Zen?

I am not sure how you came up with your numbers but did Norman also mess up his graph

 

[FLASH1296]

iCountNTrack,

I have poor vision; but the graph above has 12 Counts listed and only 11 shown.

It appears that Hi-Opt II is NOT there.

W. T. F. ?