An engineer who uses hi-lo

[psyduck]

If you do HIOPT II please use an ace side count and appropriate count adjustments. Nobody uses HIOPT II without them. It beats all other counts in chart comparisons I am curious how it would do in the sims.

Ace side count for betting will not show effect under flat betting. My belief is any system with better PE should show higher winrate over HiLo under flat betting. So far I see none in shoe games.

 

[tthree]

I can't blame psyduck for following his own sims but I am not convinced the PE values in all the charts that say the same thing are based on something . Obviously his sims overlook a necessary part of determining playing efficiency.

 

[fwb]

Counts compared:

http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I believe I asked you once before to describe how you use Ace side counting with HiLo, but never got an answer. Care to give details?

Probably the most effective way is long-published and it's to use Hi-Opt I for playing and insurance (3-6= +1, 10's= -1) and keep a second count of ace vs. deuce. The two counts added together are exactly High-Low and that's what you set your bets with.

 

[zengrifter]

Incorporate a side count of aces to HI-LO in DD, the results can be excellent.

You use it for betting and a few deviation plays.

I call it Hi-Lo-Lo,,and it rocks!

Et tu, Panther? z:laugh:g

 

[fwb]

Probably the most effective way is long-published and it's to use Hi-Opt I for playing and insurance (3-6= +1, 10's= -1) and keep a second count of ace vs. deuce. The two counts added together are exactly High-Low and that's what you set your bets with.

Easier imo to use hi opt II with just an ace sidecount, .99 BC I believe?

 

[Gamblor]

Maybe he got in some time on sims or online? Still is an extremely large amount of hands.

 

[zengrifter]

High-Low? Disgusting!

He must be extremely stupid to leave all that money on the table. High-Low is only suitable for non-pitch and non-shoe games.

Don't be silly. zg

 

[psyduck]

winrate of level 2 systems vs HiLo

I can't blame psyduck for following his own sims but I am not convinced the PE values in all the charts that say the same thing are based on something . Obviously his sims overlook a necessary part of determining playing efficiency.

I increased the bet size so that there are more digits in winrate, increasing the chance of seeing small differences. All the level 2 systems use more indices than my own HiLo.

Winrate improvement of level 2 systems over HiLo:

Zen: -1.5%
Omega II: 9.8%
Hi Opt II: 21%
Mentor: -9.2%
Felt: 6.6%

Sim conditions: 6 deck, H17, LS, DAS, DOA, 80% pen, flat betting.

 

[The Chaperone]

No way! I guess 200,000 hands a year is possible, but you are going to have to play a lot more than 40 hours a week. 40 hours a week @ 100 hands an hour. It just doesn't work that way, trust me. I keep track of my play by estimating hands played rather than hours and I estimate I am just under 100,000 hands per year for each of the past couple years. I spend more than 50 hours a week total scounting, walking and playing to reach that figure. I can't see many folks going much above this amount unless they had absolutely no life. And beleive me, if you did do this for a year, basically playing and sleeping, no way anyone could string several years of this amount of play together, let alone 10.

Either his estimate is way off, or this figure is stretched out over 30-40 years.

I've played 10,000 hands in one day once and have had many days with over 5k hands.

 

[sagefr0g]

I've played 10,000 hands in one day once and have had many days with over 5k hands.

i believe you, but it's kind of unbelievable, lol.
i sure would like to know how you pulled that off.

 

[21forme]

I've played 10,000 hands in one day once and have had many days with over 5k hands.

Let's see... 3 spots, 100 rounds/hour, 17 hours = 5000+ hands.
How'd you do 10K?

 

[fwb]

I found the other article I was looking for: WAITING FOR THE LONG RUN: FLUCTUATION AND YOUR BLACKJACK BANKROLL By Arnold Snyder
Another one of my favorites, should be required reading for newbies.

I've played 10,000 hands in one day once and have had many days with over 5k hands.

416 hands/hr for 24 hours? Please PM me I want to watch this

The most I've gotten was about 600-800/hr, but that was only for a short time with one dealer (known for being the fastest in town) when I was heads up, no way I could keep that for an entire day unless they reserved me a table (while counting? :laugh. Also throw some casino hopping in there with a food break or two...care to explain a little more?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Easier imo to use hi opt II with just an ace sidecount, .99 BC I believe?

Sure, if you find it easier to count level 2. Some people have a lot of difficulty with that, more than with a sidecount.

 

[Jack_Black]

Let's see... 3 spots, 100 rounds/hour, 17 hours = 5000+ hands.
How'd you do 10K?

Not sure why 100 hands/hr is the standard rate people use. 100 hands is about the speed you get with 4-5 other players at the table. 300-360hands/hr is what you can get heads up.

 

[kewljason]

Not sure why 100 hands/hr is the standard rate people use. 100 hands is about the speed you get with 4-5 other players at the table. 300-360hands/hr is what you can get heads up.

Not sure where you are playing jack, but I have seen few games with 5 players that get 100 rounds per hour. Not only would the dealer have to be fairly quick, but the players would all have to be playing quick and business-like, and that just rarely happens at full tables. Add in dealer changes, fills, buy-ins and color ups and my experiences are that a table with 5 players gets about half that, which is why most of us will not even consider playing such unless there is something extraordinary about the game.

As for Mr Chap's claim of 10,000 hands in a day, obviously, playing heads up, multiple hands with a fast dealer for multiple hours at a stretch. I can see how a player could get in that many hands, but I don't see how a card counter using any kind of reasonable spread, could do so for any length of time. I hope you will share a few more details.

 

[zengrifter]

Winrate improvement of level 2 systems over HiLo:

Zen: -1.5%
Omega II: 9.8%
Hi Opt II: 21%
Mentor: -9.2%
Felt: 6.6%

So does the above say that ZEN and Mentor actually perform below HiLo?
Notwithstanding the above, your numbers are deceptive, at best. zg

 

[kewljason]

In my simulations, I cannot find a level-2 count that can outperform my HiLo for the 6-deck shoe game I play.

I increased the bet size so that there are more digits in winrate, increasing the chance of seeing small differences. All the level 2 systems use more indices than my own HiLo.

Winrate improvement of level 2 systems over HiLo:

Zen: -1.5%
Omega II: 9.8%
Hi Opt II: 21%
Mentor: -9.2%
Felt: 6.6%

Sim conditions: 6 deck, H17, LS, DAS, DOA, 80% pen, flat betting.

I am confused as to what you are saying, psyduck. Doesn't your example of 3 of the 5 outperforming hi-lo with one about even, contradict your earlier statement?

 

[tthree]

Sure, if you find it easier to count level 2. Some people have a lot of difficulty with that, more than with a sidecount.

It just takes practice. Some people expect after a short time they are ready but it takes a long time to properly prepare to have a significant advantage rather than a very small advantage.

 

[FLASH1296]

I want to know how it is possible for Mentor and Zen to be inferior (in the stated scenario) to Hi-Lo.

I am befuddled. I look forward to an explanation. Until then I remain skeptical.