An engineer who uses hi-lo

The Chaperone

Well-Known Member
Some dealers are quite fast...

...and some machines are even faster :)

In my original post I was referring to a machine which I can play at about 800-900 hands/hr at top speed, but 600/hr is more realistic for any long length of time (i.e. more than 2-3 straight hours). This machine is just one hand at a time. No option of playing multiple hands vs. the dealer.

Actually though if you count hands and not rounds, I may have played 10k hands in one day at a live game at a certain triple down promotion. Me and another AP had the table locked down for 24 straight hours playing 3x500 each. Doing the math, we would have had to average 139 rounds/hr in order to get 10,000 hands in each. Without any ploppies to slow us down I'm fairly certain we were over 100 rounds/hr, but I'm guessing that maybe we weren't quite up to 139/hr. There were also occasional wong-outs with bathroom breaks which would have cost some hands. I averaged about 15 cents/hand in profit for that promo... :laugh:

Towards the end of my first year of playing full-time (actually the only year of full-time play), I came across the fastest dealer I have ever seen. Tbh, if I saw her now I would have serious trouble keeping up, but after playing over 1500 hours in the previous year, I could keep up with anybody. She was equally shocked at the speed of my play and after a while it was clear she was taking it as a challenge to see how fast we could get through the shoes. We laughed and joked about how fast the game as she moved cards in and out of the ASM (which was fortunately set at a fairly fast speed!). Anyways I remember clocking it and figuring out that we were playing approximately 1,000 total hands per hour. When I say total hands, I mean counting the dealers hand. I was alternating between 2 and 3 spots, so I probably got 70% or so of the hands dealt, which means I was playing 700 hands/hr and approximately 300 rounds/hr were dealt. I should also add that this dealer was very sharp and more or less knew what I was up to. She knew basic strategy, but after playing with me for a while, she also started to learn the hands that I sometimes played differently. When I had soft 18 vs. 10, she didn't even wait for a signal, she just hit me. But when I had 12 vs. a small upcard, she waited for the signal. This helped speed up the game even more.

If I had to guess I'd say I've played about a million hands in my life, but I've only been playing for 8 years and really only one full-time year and maybe 4 or 5 part-time years in that time frame. I rarely play standard counting games anymore. I've grown to dislike the risk/reward ratio of straight counting, not to mention some of the ridiculous heat in certain parts of the country.

Lastly, I would point out that some of the Vegas-centric people in this thread are fairly naive about a couple points on this topic. First there are some places where you could literally tell them you are counting and you would not be backed off (at least until you won huge).

Second, Vegas dealers totally suck!!! Many of them are union. Others are juiced into the job. A lot are older than dirt. And basically none of them go for their own (this is a big factor in game speed IMO). You would be shocked at the kind of game speed you can run into in places like WA where you have a plethora of talented, young, reasonably intelligent dealers who are all working for their own tips.
 

psyduck

Well-Known Member
FLASH1296 said:

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.
I am not clear why I saw what I saw. I asked members here to do the sim and look at your own results, but so far you guys just talk!
 

psyduck

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
So does the above say that ZEN and Mentor actually perform below HiLo?
Notwithstanding the above, your numbers are deceptive, at best. zg
Show me YOUR numbers under the same sim condition! I do not just take info from the books.
 

psyduck

Well-Known Member
kewljason said:
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?:confused:
I was hoping that you would do a sim under the same condition to see what result you would have.
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
psyduck said:
I was hoping that you would do a sim under the same condition to see what result you would have.
I don't have sim capability at the moment. (new computer) but will try to get to it shortly. I have just been lazy about switching some things. :eek:
 

Sharky

Well-Known Member
The Chaperone said:
...Me and another AP had the table locked down for 24 straight hours playing 3x500 each....I averaged about 15 cents/hand in profit for that promo... :laugh:...

you played 3x500 for 24 hrs and averaged 15c per hand on 10k hands???

$0.15x10,000=$1500...WOW!!! (considering the spread)
 

fwb

Well-Known Member
psyduck said:
I asked members here to do the sim and look at your own results, but so far you guys just talk!
I'm not sure why I wasted my time with this but here you go:

Sim conditions: 6 deck, H17, LS, DAS, DOA, 80% pen, 18 indicies, flat betting ($25).

(mentor not available in CVData)

Now here is the winrate of each with the optimal 1-20 ($25 min) spread, from 'call CVCX':

(note: I did not include the ace sidecount for Hi Opt II, if I did it would out-perform the others)
The RoR listed there is with a $55k bankroll.
 
Last edited:

psyduck

Well-Known Member
fwb said:
I'm not sure why I wasted my time with this but here you go:

Sim conditions: 6 deck, H17, LS, DAS, DOA, 80% pen, 18 indicies, flat betting ($25).

(mentor not available in CVData)

Now here is the winrate of each with the optimal 1-20 ($25 min) spread, from 'call CVCX':

(note: I did not include the ace sidecount for Hi Opt II, if I did it would out-perform the others)
The RoR listed there is with a $55k bankroll.
First of all, you should not have done it if you considered it a waste of time.

Secondly, do you believe that your own data showed that level 2 systems have higher PE than HiLo?
 
Last edited:

tthree

Banned
psyduck said:
First of all, you should not have done it if you considered it a waste of time.

Secondly, do you believe that your own data showed that level 2 systems have higher PE than HiLo?
Hilo was out performed in PE by all but felt (they all had negative win rates for flat betting). HILO has the highest RoR, highest N0, highest standard deviation and the lowest SCORE. And HIOPT II didn't even have an ace side count to get a betting correlation boost of almost 10%. If you don't see this from the sim, we know why you keep making the claims you do.
 

psyduck

Well-Known Member
tthree said:
Hilo was out performed in PE by all but felt (they all had negative win rates for flat betting). HILO has the highest RoR, highest N0, highest standard deviation and the lowest SCORE. And HIOPT II didn't even have an ace side count to get a betting correlation boost of almost 10%. If you don't see this from the sim, we know why you keep making the claims you do.
I still believe that effect of PE is best reflected under flat betting.

Hi Opt II clearly stands out. Other level 2 systems showed mixed winrate compared to HiLo. As far as I am concerned, the tiny difference is practically meaningless (except Hi Opt II which will require ace side count to boost BC).
 

tthree

Banned
psyduck said:
I still believe that effect of PE is best reflected under flat betting.

Hi Opt II clearly stands out. Other level 2 systems showed mixed winrate compared to HiLo. As far as I am concerned, the tiny difference is practically meaningless (except Hi Opt II which will require ace side count to boost BC).
You are right in that pretty much everyone that uses HIOPT II side counts aces.

11.13/ 11.73 = .948849
1 - .948849 = .051151

A 5.1151% increase in win rate due to PE for Zen and Omega II is not trivial. If you think it is add that % of your win to the dealer's tip at the end of every winning session. They earn it and it is trivial to your long run expectation anyway.
 

psyduck

Well-Known Member
tthree said:
You are right in that pretty much everyone that uses HIOPT II side counts aces.

11.13/ 11.73 = .948849
1 - .948849 = .051151

A 5.1151% increase in win rate due to PE for Zen and Omega II is not trivial. If you think it is add that % of your win to the dealer's tip at the end of every winning session. They earn it and it is trivial to your long run expectation anyway.
Not just that. I saw different trend from fwb's results, with Zen having lower winrate than HiLo and Felt having higher winrate than HiLo. I will have to study more.
 

psyduck

Well-Known Member
tthree said:
And HIOPT II didn't even have an ace side count to get a betting correlation boost of almost 10%.
The BC of HiLo is already high (97%). If you only consider BC, Hi Opt II with ace side count will not offer much improvement over HiLo.
 

tthree

Banned
psyduck said:
The BC of HiLo is already high (97%). If you only consider BC, Hi Opt II with ace side count will not offer much improvement over HiLo.
HIOPT II with ace side BC is 99%. You are right there isn't much room above HILO for BC but it takes 2/3 of what is there. I was curious if you rotate the seating of all 6 being compared and repeat to average the 6 sims all using the same seed number for the random number generator to eliminate the luck of which seat each strategy is occupying. I wrote my own program years ago but a power surge fried my computer. I don't know if these sim generators allow you to do that.
 

The Chaperone

Well-Known Member
Sharky said:
you played 3x500 for 24 hrs and averaged 15c per hand on 10k hands???

$0.15x10,000=$1500...WOW!!! (considering the spread)
It was an extremely disappointing result.

PS there was no spread.
 

psyduck

Well-Known Member
tthree said:
HIOPT II with ace side BC is 99%. You are right there isn't much room above HILO for BC but it takes 2/3 of what is there. I was curious if you rotate the seating of all 6 being compared and repeat to average the 6 sims all using the same seed number for the random number generator to eliminate the luck of which seat each strategy is occupying. I wrote my own program years ago but a power surge fried my computer. I don't know if these sim generators allow you to do that.
Seats were automatically rotated during the sim. Even with that feature, I noted that the same sim when run multiple times will not always reach exactly the same number. There must be a margin of error. With 200 million rounds, the same sim can have 2-3% change in result. Not surprising there is an accuracy associated with each sim.
 

psyduck

Well-Known Member
clarification

psyduck said:
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 indices for all those level 2 systems came with the simulator I bought. The results that both Zen and Mentor performed worse than HiLo made me suspect that some of the indices are inaccurate in the canned sims.

Further evidence came from comparison between HiLo and Zen using the same number of indices I generated myself. With flat betting, Zen showed 2.3% improvement in winrate over HiLo (300 million rounds, each system was assigned to two players, the average of two was used for comparison, margin of error ~1%).

For those of you who use indices from whatever sources, I hope they are accurate for you!
 

Sharky

Well-Known Member
The Chaperone said:
It was an extremely disappointing result.

PS there was no spread.
wow, even worse yet...0.0001 ROI, YIKES!! and you guys must've had a sick br...like suitcase sized :laugh:

def better than losing and good thing you quit when you did or you could've broke even on the next hand

good luck
 

21forme

Well-Known Member
creeping panther said:
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!:cool:

CP
Still waiting for a response, CP.
 

fwb

Well-Known Member
psyduck said:
Not just that. I saw different trend from fwb's results, with Zen having lower winrate than HiLo and Felt having higher winrate than HiLo. I will have to study more.
I'm not sure you are interpreting the results correctly. A red numbers in parenthesis means NEGATIVE. With flat-betting, the hi-lo player lost $11.73 per hour, while the zen player lost $11.14 per hour. Zen, along with the other level 2 systems, had a higher "winrate" (or in this case lower loss rate). Now when applying an optimal spread to each, note that the zen player won $2 more per hour, and with lower variance. You were correct in pointing out that to a casual player, "the tiny difference is practically meaningless". However for a dedicated player who will put in ~1,000 hrs per year, that extra fraction goes a long way. Note that RoR was reduced by a factor of %20, and N0 was reduced by 10%. This means you will reach your expectation 10% faster and reduce your chance of losing your bankroll by a factor of 20%. To a skilled player with a large bankroll, this improvement is significant once they are experienced enough to employ a level 2 system perfectly.

I hope it's crystal clear now.
 
Last edited:
Top