I need help with a problem

K

kemperpoker

Member
QFIT as we all know has a excellent simulator for different strategies and outcome projections but I have some outcomes I dont understand..

Comparing the basic Hi Lo vs. basic Omega I was under the impression that, as a example, if you took 25 random cards of the top of a double deck and used both counts, the true count would be about the same.

here are 25 cards...
8,7,9,8,7,K,K,A,J,3,5,4,2,2,5,4,5,2,6,3,4,4,6,6,5

the running omega count is +22, true count about +16
the running hi lo count is +12, true count about +9

here are 25 other cards....
7,8,3,3,5,6,6,3,2,5,3,7,A,K,10,Q,10,Q,J,J,J,10,Q,10,K

omega true count about -5
hi lo true count about -2

Using QFIT's simulation at DD 70% penetration and just looking at the positive count the true count of +16 on omega comes .42% of the time with an advantage of about 4.63%...while the hi lo true count of +9 comes .64% of the time with about a 5.91% advantage.

To me this seems like a big difference in percentage outcomes. which is closer to the truth?

Now what I always thought was all the proven counting systems all come to about the same true count and 1 true count is about .5% swing to your favor. I use the advanced omega, should I adjust my thinking in terms of expected advantage?

If I can have your thoughts and input for follow up questions.
Thanks.
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
Converting between a Level Two Count like A.O.II and a Level One Count like Hi-Lo requires a coefficient which will give approximately correct conversions - to create roughly equivalent T.C.'s

I use Zen in shoe games and Hi-Opt II in "pitch" games; but to converse with my peers I often must convert True Counts to Hi-Lo so as to have a common ground.

Multiplying a Hi-Lo True Count times 1.7 will give fairly good equivalent ZEN True Counts.

The value of each True Count integer is much higher with Level One Counts. Typically double.
However, identifying advantageous situations (and weighing them accurately) is handled much better by higher level counts.

A.O. II includes values for all cards but the 8 and as such it has a very high Playing Efficiency.
Level One Counts never have high Playing Efficiency, ergo the True Count, while good for bet-sizing is weak, when it comes to violating Basic Strategy.

With the subset of cards that you presented you computed True Counts of -5 and -2.
The -5 would mean that with A.O. II your (dis)advantage would be approx. - 1.25% added to the House Edge.
The -2 would mean that with Hi-Lo your (dis)advantage would be approx. - 1.00% added to the House Edge.

A Level Two Count is always more accurate than a Level One Count.
That is why we go to the trouble to use Level Two Counts, especially in Shoe Games.
 
Last edited:
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
kemperpoker said:
Now what I always thought was all the proven counting systems all come to about the same true count and 1 true count is about .5% swing to your favor.
Click to expand...
I wish no one had ever said this. It is probably the most quoted, incorrect statement in card counting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top