hi-lo one of the worst systems?

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

according to this, hi-lo is one of the worst systems.. http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/OSRating.htm (Archive copy)
now i know most of you will disagree, and im not agreeing or disagreeing, i just want to know why hi-lo is decent if the numbers are so low on it (BC, PE..)

 

[RG1]

That site doesn't factor in difficulty. I like this site better: http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

You'll notice that Hi-Lo is the best level 1 balanced count that doesn't side count aces. It's not only about BC and PE but also simplicity. Simplicity leads to accuracy and the ability to play long sessions. Factor in simplicity and Hi-Lo is one of the best.

 

[FrankieT]

according to this, hi-lo is one of the worst systems.. http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/OSRating.htm (Archive copy)
now i know most of you will disagree, and im not agreeing or disagreeing, i just want to know why hi-lo is decent if the numbers are so low on it (BC, PE..)

switching from a lvl 1system(and hi lo is the easiest lvl 1 system in my opinion) to a lvl 3 system adds very little money, like pennies on the dollar. You'll make way more money putting your attention on finding optimal game conditions (deck penetration most importantly) rather then going through the huge learning curve of learning an upper tier system.

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

That site doesn't factor in difficulty. I like this site better: http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

You'll notice that Hi-Lo is the best level 1 balanced count that doesn't side count aces. It's not only about BC and PE but also simplicity. Simplicity leads to accuracy and the ability to play long sessions. Factor in simplicity and Hi-Lo is one of the best.

I can't see why a side count of aces wouldn't be a bad idea with the simple Hi/Lo counting system. It isn't hard to add on to the relatively simple system and can tell you when or when not to expect an ace.

If a hundred cards or so go by in a six deck shoe and only one or two aces are shown it increases the next deal to give an ace to the board. A chance to bet higher even if the true count is neutral. Seems to help me anyway.

 

[RG1]

I can't see why a side count of aces wouldn't be a bad idea with the simple Hi/Lo counting system. It isn't hard to add on to the relatively simple system and can tell you when or when not to expect an ace.

If a hundred cards or so go by in a six deck shoe and only one or two aces are shown it increases the next deal to give an ace to the board. A chance to bet higher even if the true count is neutral. Seems to help me anyway.

Your hi-lo TC which tells you your optimal bet already factors in that you have a better chance of getting an ace. For the extra difficulty you mise well use a level 2 or 3 count.

To each his own, but I don't think you are gaining much from side counting aces in a shoe. That said, having a side count of aces can only help. Like when you know most of your positive hi-lo count is made up of aces you won't take insurance as often. In this situation you will be less likely to double an 11, and more likely to double a 9 or 10 with more aces.

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

Your hi-lo TC which tells you your optimal bet already factors in that you have a better chance of getting an ace. For the extra difficulty you mise well use a level 2 or 3 count.

To each his own, but I don't think you are gaining much from side counting aces in a shoe. That said, having a side count of aces can only help. Like when you know most of your positive hi-lo count is made up of aces you won't take insurance as often. In this situation you will be less likely to double an 11, and more likely to double a 9 or 10 with more aces.

Or the possibility of getting an ace pair against a weak dealer up card. I figure it can't hurt. And the chance to stick a little more dough up front early in the shoe when few aces have been played.

 

[Kasi]

according to this, hi-lo is one of the worst systems.. http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/OSRating.htm (Archive copy)
now i know most of you will disagree, and im not agreeing or disagreeing, i just want to know why hi-lo is decent if the numbers are so low on it (BC, PE..)

For one, it's based on a very specific game (SD, 4-1 spread, S17,No DAS).

It assumes TC adjustments for KO for the BC, etc.

The OSR is based on running counts.

Basically, KO might outperform Hi-Lo in certain games but not in others.

 

[jack.jackson]

Sheddin some light

For one, it's based on a very specific game (SD, 4-1 spread, S17,No DAS).

It assumes TC adjustments for KO for the BC, etc.

The OSR is based on running counts.

Basically, KO might outperform Hi-Lo in certain games but not in others.

I would also like to note, that a system with the highest PE. will outperform(higher OSR) any other system on a 1:1 spread.
Likewise, a system with the highest BC. will outperform(higher OSR) any other system on a infinite spread. For your BC will ALWAYS match your OSR when bet spreads are maxed out. (In general a BC of usually .99+ will usually max itself on or around 1:80 to 1:120 spread.)

Important to note: A systems OSR (EV?) will not change between 1:6 through 1:12 for reasons i dont understand.
This is where (i believe) win rate vs ev shows its difference. Hence, were making more money because were betting more money. But doing so with less of a given edge. In effect increasing are risk of ruin. Opposed, to smaller spreads that gives us more bang for our buck with much less risk. But of course our winrate will be smaller because were betting less money. To try and put it in a nutshell( pick your poison). Case in point if your playing on a limited BR it makes perfect sense to use smaller spreads. Youll get a bigger bang for your buck!

Im not trying to say i know exactly how it works. Because obviously i dont! But i believe its better to be aware that the difference does exist. So be careful before you go off wandering into dark territorys without knowing what awaits you:flame:

 

[RJT]

The beauty of the Hi/Lo system lies in its simplicity. If you are playing solo, or playing against hand dealt game, then you would possibly be better off with a higher level count, but for those players looking to play shoe games, maybe with a team or perhaps looking for a larger advantage through other techniques, it keeps things simple so you can focus on other aspects of the game.
As to side counting Aces with Hi/Lo - it's pretty pointless. The whole idea behind side counting Aces is to use the information differently to make betting and playing decisions. As Hi/Lo already counts the Ace's as -1, it's already considered them a high card for both decisions, where as you need to consider it a low card for playing decisions. If you want to use a side count of Aces, use a non-Ace reckoned count like the Hi Opt I.

RJT.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

That site doesn't factor in difficulty. I like this site better: http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

You'll notice that Hi-Lo is the best level 1 balanced count that doesn't side count aces. It's not only about BC and PE but also simplicity. Simplicity leads to accuracy and the ability to play long sessions. Factor in simplicity and Hi-Lo is one of the best.

but there are a few systems that are better than high low in PE (BC is usually the same or w/ in .02), and still just as simple or simpler

For one, it's based on a very specific game (SD, 4-1 spread, S17,No DAS).

It assumes TC adjustments for KO for the BC, etc.

The OSR is based on running counts.

Basically, KO might outperform Hi-Lo in certain games but not in others.

i hate how its based on none standard games.. (i will base this simulation on 1 deck, 80% penetration, LSR, DAS, etc), who the hell plays those games? and 1 more thing to add, as i am adding in all my posts, i am flat betting $10, wonging in at anything over zero, and thus 90% of everything i read is pointless as spreading plays a part in all the math

 

[RG1]

but there are a few systems that are better than high low in PE (BC is usually the same or w/ in .02), and still just as simple or simpler

I don't think they are balanced counts or they don't count the ace. At the bottom of the site I linked: "Note: Playing Efficiency (as defined by Griffin) is not relevant to unbalanced counting systems and is only an estimate."

If you are flat bet wonging you shouldn't care about the ace. Hi-Lo is an easy count for good betting correlation for shoe games. If you aren't going to take advantage of the Hi-Lo BC during shoe games then you are better off using another count.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

If you are flat bet wonging you shouldn't care about the ace. Hi-Lo is an easy count for good betting correlation for shoe games. If you aren't going to take advantage of the Hi-Lo BC during shoe games then you are better off using another count.

thats what i have been saying/thinking.. i need a count for wonging and insurance (since its the biggest index play), and perhaps a few other index plays

 

[Sonny]

Important to note: A systems OSR (EV?) will not change between 1:6 through 1:12 for reasons i dont understand.

The EV does increase even if the OSR doesn’t. I’m not familiar with the OSR so I don’t know why that is, but it might be a good indication that OSR isn’t a good comparison.

Hence, were making more money because were betting more money. But doing so with less of a given edge. In effect increasing are risk of ruin. Opposed, to smaller spreads that gives us more bang for our buck with much less risk. But of course our winrate will be smaller because were betting less money.

You’ve got it backwards. A larger bet spread will give you a bigger advantage and therefore a smaller ROR. Using a smaller bet spread will earn less money for about the same amount of risk, which increases ROR. Think of it this way: Who has a higher EV and smaller ROR, a guy spreading $25-$100 or a guy spreading $10-$100? The guy with the bigger spread is winning more money not because he is betting more money but because he is betting less money when he doesn’t have an advantage. Technically he isn’t making more money, he’s just saving more money. He's risking less money and earning more money so his ROR goes down.

-Sonny-

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

The EV does increase even if the OSR doesn’t. I’m not familiar with the OSR so I don’t know why that is, but it might be a good indication that OSR isn’t a good comparison.



You’ve got it backwards. A larger bet spread will give you a bigger advantage and therefore a smaller ROR. Using a smaller bet spread will earn less money for about the same amount of risk, which increases ROR. Think of it this way: Who has a higher EV and smaller ROR, a guy spreading $25-$100 or a guy spreading $10-$100? The guy with the bigger spread is winning more money not because he is betting more money but because he is betting less money when he doesn’t have an advantage. Technically he isn’t making more money, he’s just saving more money. He's risking less money and earning more money so his ROR goes down.

-Sonny-

your RoR goes up if your spread goes up, otherwise people would just use 1-20 spread all the time.. you cant tell me that with a $1000 bankroll, your RoR doesnt skyrocket when your betting $10-$200 compared to $10-$20.. thats the entire point of RoR vs high spread/advantage.. you can have a huge advantage, but if you only have $1000 bankroll, it wont matter, because a small negative streak will wipe you out

 

[EasyRhino]

You can increase your spread by merely decreasing your minimum bet. That both decreases RoR and increases profitability.

RoR depends on your max bet, your min bet, and everything in between.

 

[Sonny]

your RoR goes up if your spread goes up,

Not if you spread properly. Reread my explanation above.

you cant tell me that with a $1000 bankroll, your RoR doesnt skyrocket when your betting $10-$200 compared to $10-$20..

But why would you be betting $200 in the first place? If your max bet is $20 then you don’t go higher than that ever. Using a bigger spread never means raising your max bet, it means lowering your minimum bet. In the case above you could switch to a $5-$20 spread, or even a $0-$20 spread if you can backcount. Both spreads will increase your EV and reduce your ROR. You could also try spreading to multiple hands to reduce the variance.

-Sonny-

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Not if you spread properly. Reread my explanation above.



But why would you be betting $200 in the first place? If your max bet is $20 then you don’t go higher than that ever. Using a bigger spread never means raising your max bet, it means lowering your minimum bet. In the case above you could switch to a $5-$20 spread, or even a $0-$20 spread if you can backcount. Both spreads will increase your EV and reduce your ROR. You could also try spreading to multiple hands to reduce the variance.

-Sonny-

i was talking about 2 dif ppl, both with the same bankroll, one betting $10-$20, the other spreading $10-$200.. the latter would be taking the higher risk if the bankroll was small.. i just wish som1 would have a plan for me, flat betting $10 while wonging and using a few indexes, i just dont think hi-lo is the system for that, nor is most of the systems out there.. if you take away the spreading, you can throw out a majority of the systems and data out there for counting

 

[Sonny]

i just wish som1 would have a plan for me...

If you absolutely must play, Wong In/Out at a +2TC and spread $5-$20. You’ll be playing with an advantage and will have about a 5% risk of ruin. You might even make a few dollars an hour.

If your just playing for fun then you’re all set. If you’re serious about getting an edge, read these:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5655

if you take away the spreading, you can throw out a majority of the systems and data out there for counting

Then don't settle for counting cards. Learn something more powerful:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=21994

-Sonny-

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

the table minimum is $10, and i dont understand why everybody has the mentality of, "if you cant get an advantage, dont even try to lower the house edge" and thats essentially what people are saying when they say "if you cant spread just play bs and get comps".. there is no in between? of course there is, and thats what i want to do, get within .1% of zero (aka losing less than $1/hr).. everybody tells me to spread, but you realize how dangerous that is with a $1000 bankroll? you guys cant be serious, if your an AP, you should HIGHLY be advising against spreading with a $1000 bankroll and $10 table minimums.. it doesnt take a genius to realize that spreading $10-$40 could EASILY get you killed with a $1000 bankroll, and once i lose like $600 quickly, im really going to be upset and not sure whether to continue, then i decide to continue, now im down $1000 and thinking omg i lost $1000 to gambling in 1 month, even tho i was counting, this is horrible, etc.. i cant have that, and it would be foolish to try to do so.. and this isnt about emotionally being able to handle the swings, its about taking a huge risk for a small gain.. btw i wouldnt have to spread at all if i played only when the tc was over 1, but that would mean i would only be playing 26% of hands, not to mention +2 which is probably like 10%.. if im only playing 1/4 of the hands, what the hell is the point? i will probably be asked to play at that point.. thanks for all your help guys, but i know there is some system out there that is perfect for flat betting, a FEW index plays, and wonging

 

[ChefJJ]

but i know there is some system out there that is perfect for flat betting, a FEW index plays, and wonging

Learn KO and memorize about 13 index plays for shoe games that hinge on two count points. As far as the flat betting, just do it then...I don't see how any particular counting system is going to put forth a better advantage than another without bet variation.