Omega II Counting question

[CountingCards]

Hello,

First of all, I'm new to the forums but I've been lurking around for a while now and I think you guys are great and give real and sobering advice. That being said, my question is about the Advanced Omega II count that I learned from Bryce Carlson's Blackjack for Blood. I am currently fairly capable with the count, and I keep a side count of aces for betting purposes. Now, in the book, Bryce suggests a 1:8 spread for six deck shoe games. Is this too low of a spread? I have read in some other books that spreads of 1:10 or even 1:12 are necessary to beat a six deck game, but Bryce states that even with 1:8 you will have a significant player advantage. What are your thoughts on this? If 1:8 is not enough, then what should I use? Also, how would the betting table change based on a higher spread? I'm playing $5 min H17 DAS 6 deck.

Thanks so much for your help!

 

[zengrifter]

Ccounter - Bryce's betting strategy is entirely insufficient. You will NEED a better ramp.
Further I HIGHLY recommend that you IMMEDIATELY retrain your card tagging by
SWITCHING the 9 and Ace values permanently. You may keep your Omega indices. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Ccounter - Bryce's betting strategy is entirely insufficient. You will NEED a better ramp.
Further I HIGHLY recommend that you IMMEDIATELY retrain your card tagging by
SWITCHING the 9 and Ace values permanently. You may keep your Omega indices. zg

Oh - and you will no longer need the Ace side count once you switch the A&9 tags,
which is ineffective in 6D anyway. zg

 

[CountingCards]

Hey ZenGrifter, in the book it actually does mention what you're talking about. Bryce calls it the Z/Omega II Gambit, and it's when you switch around the value of the Ace and the 9 like you said. According to the book, when I do this, I'm essentially playing the Zen count, which I understand is one of the strongest counts available. The indices for the Zen and Omega II are the exact same? The book says that the Omega II indices work "just fine" for the Zen, but are there any changes to note?

Finally, what betting ramp would you suggest for the game I described?

Thanks a lot for your response.

 

[CountingCards]

Oh yeah, one more question for you ZenGrifter, if you don't mind. My friend lent me a copy of Blackjack Bluebook II by Fred Renzey, and I noticed it had quite a nice count in it called the Mentor count. I want to achieve the highest level of success possible here, and I'm willing to put in the effort to re-learn my system if you can answer me this: Is it better to stick with the Zen/OmegaII, or learn the Mentor count and apply Fred Renzey's betting strategies (which look pretty great to me!).

Thanks again ;-)

 

[ArcticInferno]

What bet spread do you need to beat a game?
What do you mean by “beat” the game?
There’s a threshold spread that will give you a break-even proposition.
I think the threshold spread is somewhere around 2.5. (Need to double check.)
Any spread above that is positive EV.
How much is your time worth?
Different people have different expectations for compensation for their time.
If you’re worth $1/hr, then making $10/day will “beat” the game.
If you’re worth $1000/hr, then you need a very large spread to make the game worth while.
It’s all relative.

 

[CountingCards]

For now, since I live about 1.5 hours away from the nearest casino, I was planning on going and wonging with one of my counting friends, betting $5 minimum, possibly a $5-60 spread or something like that, for maybe 4 hours Saturday and 4 hours Sunday, let's say. I know it's not good to play so often at the same casino but I really have no choice until I'm done university. Basically I'm looking to maximize my expectation for this scenario.

 

[Southpaw]

The indices for the Zen and Omega II are the exact same? The book says that the Omega II indices work "just fine" for the Zen, but are there any changes to note?

The indices are not going to be exactly the same. However, the cost, most will agree is negligible. As evidenced by Arnold Snyder's Hi-Lo Lite, the penalty for fudging indices is absolutely minimal, if not negligible.

Also, see my very post to this site, which included a brief examination of the penalty for using HO2 indices instead of Zen indices, when playing the Zen Count:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=20111&highlight=southpaw

I do think it would be advisable to just keep the indices that you already know like the back of your hand.

Best,

SP

 

[CountingCards]

There's one thing I'm awfully curious about. Why is the side count of Aces not advantageous on a six deck game? I'm not sure I understand that, since some other high level counts keep an Ace side count too. Please don't misunderstand me, I will switch the Aces and 9's like Zengrifter said, but I'm just curious as to why this is beneficial. If I play regular Advanced Omega II with the Ace side count, but bet with a steeper ramp, would that be okay?

In another book I have - Blackjack Blueprint by Rick Blaine - he suggests a 1-12 bet spread using the Zen count (which would be what I'm using if I swap the 9 and Ace). At a TC of 0, you bet 1 unit. Then for each additional TC you bet 2, 4, 6, 8, 12. How does this spread sound to you guys? This way I could use my OmegaII indices, swap the 9 and Ace, and essentially be using the Zen count.

 

[Southpaw]

There's one thing I'm awfully curious about. Why is the side count of Aces not advantageous on a six deck game? I'm not sure I understand that, since some other high level counts keep an Ace side count too. Please don't misunderstand me, I will switch the Aces and 9's like Zengrifter said, but I'm just curious as to why this is beneficial.

It is always preferable to have a perfect side-count of the aces, regardless of the number of decks being used.

Every time this subject gets brought up (ace-reckoned counts vs. ace-neutral counts), it turns into a heated battle and someone always ends up getting their feelings hurt As a matter of a fact, I'm surprised it hasn't already begun, yet.

There is an argument that the effort required to side-count aces is not worth the benefit (if there is any practical benefit), when considering that there are other powerful ace-neutral or ace-semi-neutral counts, and that it is an unequivocal fact that no counter can execute the ASC strategy as accurately as the computers can.

However, this will be debated until the end of time, so do as you wish.

SP

 

[zengrifter]

Oh yeah, one more question for you ZenGrifter, if you don't mind. My friend lent me a copy of Blackjack Bluebook II by Fred Renzey, and I noticed it had quite a nice count in it called the Mentor count. I want to achieve the highest level of success possible here, and I'm willing to put in the effort to re-learn my system if you can answer me this: Is it better to stick with the Zen/OmegaII, or learn the Mentor count and apply Fred Renzey's betting strategies (which look pretty great to me!).

You already invested the effort in Omega, so the switch I suggested is easy.
Mentor is equal in play but would require more re-train time. What I really like about Mentor the most, which can be used for any system, is that its already calibrated for a 2DTC (TC = RC/remaining double-decks) zg

 

[zengrifter]

In another book I have - Blackjack Blueprint by Rick Blaine - he suggests a 1-12 bet spread using the Zen count (which would be what I'm using if I swap the 9 and Ace). At a TC of 0, you bet 1 unit. Then for each additional TC you bet 2, 4, 6, 8, 12. How does this spread sound to you guys?

Sounds fine, though I would spread 5-2x50 - what is your BR size? zg

 

[CountingCards]

Bankroll size is only $3000, it's between me and my other friend who counts too, ie. we're both putting in 1500 and playing together.

So, for right now I think I will try the Zen (with OmegaII indices). It sounds good, now it just comes down to ROR calculations...

 

[zengrifter]

Bankroll size is only $3000, it's between me and my other friend who counts too, ie. we're both putting in 1500 and playing together.

So, for right now I think I will try the Zen (with OmegaII indices). It sounds good, now it just comes down to ROR calculations...

I would max out at 2x30 with LOTS of exit.
Wong in when you can... and always wong out when you must.
If you guys are willing to go for bust, up it to 2x50. zg

 

[CountingCards]

We will definitely wong as much as possible, so as not to play when we are at a disadvantage. What are good wong-in/out true counts for the Zen?

In addition, what would be good wonging counts if I'm using Omega II with Ace side count? Just curious. Also, how would the true count betting change? Would I still use the same 1,2,3,4,5 TC betting strategy as in the Zen?

 

[zengrifter]

We will definitely wong as much as possible, so as not to play when we are at a disadvantage. What are good wong-in/out true counts for the Zen?

I will differ to someone else on the wongIN count.
Wonging in (need the count) I would enter with 2x10.
For wongOUT I'd go with -2.
Refresh my memory - Omega is a 1DTC, right?

In addition, what would be good wonging counts if I'm using Omega II with Ace side count? Just curious. Also, how would the true count betting change? Would I still use the same 1,2,3,4,5 TC betting strategy as in the Zen?

Betting ramps for either, in realplay, would be identical.
But if you are primarily playing 6D, make the tag switch now and don't look back. zg

 

[zengrifter]

If you guys are willing to go for bust, up it to 2x50. zg

That is with the caveats that
a) you do NOT raise your betting max until the BR hits $8k
b) if it tanks down below 2k you drop the max to 2x30.

using a higher RoR as a necessity of playing a short bank. zg

 

[CountingCards]

"Refresh my memory - Omega is a 1DTC, right?"

For the Omega II, True count = Running count / remaining decks (whether it's 2, 3.5, etc.). Is that what you mean by 1DTC?

Zg, if I may ask, what is your reason for not using the Ace side count? I promise I won't question your advice again, it just seems strange, and I saw some charts like on http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration7.htm that showed through simulation that it is a bit better to side count aces. Is the reason you recommend switching the 9 and Ace because the ace side count is too difficult to keep up realistically?

Thanks.

 

[zengrifter]

Is the reason you recommend switching the 9 and Ace because the ace side count is too difficult to keep up realistically?

The debate hinges around whether it can be done with the same efficiency as a computer sim demos it.
To do it truly right requires the use of a secondary balanced count overlay not taught by Bryce.
The 1/4D Ace-density method being insufficient for greater than 1D.

For Omega the secondary count overlay would be 2,7 = +1 vs A = -2

See CAN SIDE COUNTING MAKE YOU A SUPER CARD COUNTER ?

Even those who defend their 1/4D Ace estimating practice concede that the practice is not ideal for 6D+.
Uston himself declared the practice to be "obsolete", and thus even his own UAPC, in 1986 (Uston on BJ).

In my ENPPO ("expert non-pro poser opinion") there are more important aspects of the game to be focused on. zg

 

[CountingCards]

Thank you zg, that's exactly what I needed to read. It cleared up a lot of doubts I was having. So, based on what I've learned in this thread, here's what I propose:

- I will stick to playing Zen (Omega indices) with a 1-12 bet spread.
- I think I will wong-in when the TC is +1 or more, and wong-out when the TC is -2 or less.
- For my betting strategy I will use +1, 2, 3, 4, 5 TC as 2 units, 4, 8, 10, and 12 respectively

Is there anything else anyone would like to add, or am I pretty much ready to hit the casino now (after I master the swapped 9 and Ace of course)?

Thanks again for all your input.