AOII - advantage at each true count?

B

Beast

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
You can't go by the BJA sims.

The issue, which is old and settled a long time ago, is that the recommended method for counting the Aces - 1/4D density estimates - is not sufficiently accurate - this method will leave you with HO2/AO2 results only (at best) equal to ZEN.

In order to achieve the higher theoretical results, a secondary +/- count (A-2 vs 2/5+1) must be utilized. Something that virtually nobody does...

...or else both Snyder and Uston were dead wrong in their assesments.

And thus I'm wrong too, but then I have no credibility. zg
Click to expand...

Hi,

Maybe you should buy some sim software so you could see what is what. BTW, all sim software I know about sims with ace adjustments for betting to the nearest quarter deck which YOU say is inaccurate. Rukus refers to BJA as his example of proof of what I said. Those sims were run with SBA to the best of my knowledge which is one of the best simulation software out there which adjusts betting with accuracy up to the nearest quarter deck for aces. Like I said, you will always argue even if you are wrong.

Best,

Beast
 
Last edited:
R

rukus

Well-Known Member
interesting, ive never heard of the 1/4 estimation issue (maybe i live under a rock). any reference to an article or research piece? or do you have a more comprehensive explanation as to why a 1/4 estimation is insufficent? finally, if it really is insufficient, does it extend from 1D through 8D?
 
B

Beast

Well-Known Member
Hi,

The reason you haven't heard of the 1/4 deck estimation issue is because it doesn't exist. He makes things up as he goes.

Best,

Beast
 
R

rukus

Well-Known Member
also, forgot to mention that ive read those BJF articles before - no where does he say Zen is better than either HOII or AOII (at least not with side count of aces). his win-rate chart that lists Zen at the top does not list AOII at all and does not specify whether his win rates are calculated for HOII using sidecounted aces (his comment earlier about using HOII without aces instead of HOI with aces steers me towards thinking that he does not calc using sidecounted aces for hoII). As Beast said, SBA is one of the top sims and the ace sidecount sims i believe were done to either the nearest quarter or half deck, and i trust those results run by Don S (ive yet to run my own). in addition qfit.com (home of CVBJ) has CVCX sim data online and from there too does AOII and HOII edge out Zen. i just want to say i didnt want this to turn into a pissing contest of count systems, so apologies for that. for now i think im going to stick with AOII but still pick up snyders blackbelt in blackjack for info on the zen counts. the more info the merrier. thanks to both of you. any more info from either of you, keep it coming, ill read as much as i can get my hands on. thanks again.
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
Thet both get the money!

I know this may seem a little inappropriate, but arnold snyder even qoutes the A02 as the king of L2


"More significantly, Omega II has the same drawback as the Uston APC, Wong's Halves, and most any other multi-level system except the Victor APC: the need to memorize dozens of two-card combinations. Am I saying that my level-three system is not only more accurate but also easier to master than Omega II, the king of the level-twos? Absolutely". (see victor APC)also see(comparing counting systems)

A word about the zen count: By valuing the ace at -1 it will maintain both a high PE and a respectable BC, However when doing so, it neutralizes the full potential of both aspects that could be acheived if you were to keep a side count of aces!

Maybe inappropriate, unneccesary, or inept would be a more suited word than OBSOLETE??

A veiw of secondary counts for the A02:

A-2 =.989
A-2.5=.991
A-2vs2,5+1=.987
A-2vs3,5+1=.992

A-2.4vs2,4+(.4)&3,5+(.8)=.998
Note: I have a unique method for the fraction count!
(Bjmathanalyzer3.5)

The thing is, is it has taken me many years to become profecient at the A02, and my results are nothing short of remarkable for the 2D game!

To proove my results, as soon as i get a camcorder Im goin to post a video on youtube on how to turn 5,000 into 25,000 in 80-120 hrs:eek: The problem is how do I go about provin that Im just not recording winning results??
Also I dont much about computers yet. So Ill have to learn, about how to go about doing this??
Any help would be grateful! Thoughts??
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
jack said:
I know this may seem a little inappropriate, but arnold snyder even qoutes the A02 as the king of L2


"More significantly, Omega II has the same drawback as the Uston APC, Wong's Halves, and most any other multi-level system except the Victor APC: the need to memorize dozens of two-card combinations. Am I saying that my level-three system is not only more accurate but also easier to master than Omega II, the king of the level-twos? Absolutely". (see victor APC)also see(comparing counting systems)

A word about the zen count: By valuing the ace at -1 it will maintain both a high PE and a respectable BC, However when doing so, it neutralizes the full potential of both aspects that could be acheived if you were to keep a side count of aces!

Maybe inappropriate, unneccesary, or inept would be a more suited word than OBSOLETE??

A veiw of secondary counts for the A02:

A-2 =.989
A-2.5=.991
A-2vs2,5+1=.987
A-2vs3,5+1=.992

A-2.4vs2,4+(.4)&3,5+(.8)=.998
Note: I have a unique method for the fraction count!
(Bjmathanalyzer3.5)

The thing is, is it has taken me many years to become profecient at the A02, and my results are nothing short of remarkable for the 2D game!

To proove my results, as soon as i get a camcorder Im goin to post a video on youtube on how to turn 5,000 into 25,000 in 80-120 hrs:eek: The problem is how do I go about provin that Im just not recording winning results??
Also I dont much about computers yet. So Ill have to learn, about how to go about doing this??
Any help would be grateful! Thoughts??
Click to expand...
Two questions:
1. Do you use one of the Ace secondary counts that you note, and,
2. Are you familiar with the 1/4D Ace density estimation method that Carlson and Humble advocate in their books (that Beast says doesn't exist)? zg
 
B

Beast

Well-Known Member
Hi,

Stop trying to mix words. You said the "issue" of counting the ace density to the nearest 1/4 deck is not sufficiently accurate which is wrong.

Best,

Beast
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Beast said:
Stop trying to mix words. You said the "issue" of counting the ace density to the nearest 1/4 deck is not sufficiently accurate which is wrong.
Click to expand...


OH, you mean you know the 1/4D approximation method, but didn't know that its an issue.

Sure, its been an issue since the early 80s. Why else would Uston call them (including his own UAPC) obsolete in 1986? -
SNYDER (1984): What I like most about sidecounting aces with a balanced running count, rather than by comparing the number of remaining aces to an estimated number of quarter decks, is that it reduces the degree of error inherent in the approximation method.​
If anyone has Uston on BJ handy please quote from it, I think maybe page-29 (guess). zg
 
Last edited:
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Beast said:
BTW, all sim software I know about sims with ace adjustments for betting to the nearest quarter deck which YOU say is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Sim ware CAN do it accurately, humans need to use the secondary +/- Ace-count to achieve the same results. Give it up.
-- z(The extroverted, paranoid, overbetting charlatan)g
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Two questions:
1. Do you use one of the Ace secondary counts that you note, and,
2. Are you familiar with the 1/4D Ace density estimation method that Carlson and Humble advocate in their books (that Beast says doesn't exist)? zg
Click to expand...
Well yes and no. Yes, Ive been practicing the fraction count and No, Im not proficient at it. But getting there. (2D)

And yes, Im familiar with the surplus or shortage of aces in relevance to 1 for every 13 cards.

Code: 
     Primary    Sec.  Conversion> Conversion Table
       0        -2.4    -6                 1
       1         .4      1                (2)
       1         .8      2                   =1
       2         .4      1                (3)
       2         .8      2                 4
       2                                  (5)=2
       1                                   6
       0                                  (7)
      -1                                     =3
      -2                                  (8)
                                           9
                                         (10)=4
                                          11
                                         (12)
                                              =5
                                         (13)                   
                                          14
                                         (15)=6
                                         16
                                         (17)
                                             =7
                                         (18)
                                          19
                                         (20)=8.......etc
With a little memorization the conversion table becomes second nature. Note: The key trick is 2,3(12,13)7,8(17,18) 22,23(27,28)etc........
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
jack said:
And yes, Im familiar with the surplus or shortage of aces in relevance to 1 for every 13 cards.
Click to expand...
And why do you not just use that method? Wouldn't it be easier? Isn't that what Carlson recommends? zg
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
And why do you not just use that method? Wouldn't it be easier? Isn't that what Carlson recommends? zg
Click to expand...
Probably, because my mom dropped me on my head when I was baby:confused:
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
zengrifter said:
The bottom-line is that AO2 and HO2 will ONLY perform equal to ZEN UNLESS one uses a secondary count for Aces (A = -2 / 2&5 = +1). So since virtually everyone still using these 'obsolete' systems are using the authors' recommended Ace density per 1/4D method, these users are ONLY getting ZEN results while working harder.
Click to expand...
Along these lines, ZEN with a 1/4D approximated sidecount of 7s used for play adjusts (in 1-2D games) is stronger than HO2 or AO2 with the 1/4D Ace sidecount used for betting adjusts. zg
 
Last edited:
B

Beast

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Sim ware CAN do it accurately, humans need to use the secondary +/- Ace-count to achieve the same results. Give it up.
-- z(The extroverted, paranoid, overbetting charlatan)g
Click to expand...
Actually, I find it pretty easy to look at the discard pile and see if there is 1/4 deck dealt or 1/2 or 3/4. The same goes for double deck. With practice even the shoes can be estimated with 1/4 deck accuracy from eyeballing the discard tray. Are you saying you can't do this even at single or double deck?

Best,

Beast
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Beast said:
Actually, I find it pretty easy to look at the discard pile and see if there is 1/4 deck dealt or 1/2 or 3/4. The same goes for double deck. With practice even the shoes can be estimated with 1/4 deck accuracy from eyeballing the discard tray. Are you saying you can't do this even at single or double deck?
Click to expand...
I did do it, HO2, for years. Before I became an extroverted, paranoid, overbetting charlatan, that is. zg
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Beast said:
I don't mean to sound sour but I know some people that have dealt with you in real life.
Click to expand...
I just noticed that you are referring to multiple people who supposedly "have dealt" with me, presumably with unsatisfactory results.

Are THEY willing to visit here and cite dates and places? zg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top