Omega II system

[rollem411]

Alright, I am using the Omega II counting system and need some help. I use a 1:10 bet spread with a min bet of $10 and max of $100. Assume the following table:

count
0,1 = $10
2 = 20
3 = 30
4 = 40
5 = 50
6 = 60
>6 = 100

Hi lo uses only +1 for 2-6 and -1 for 10,A. 7,8,9 nothing.
Omega II uses +1 for 2,3,7...+2 for 4,5,6...-1 for 9...-2 for 10. 8/A nothing.

My question is that because the value of the cards are different do I have to adjust my betting table. Let's just say its a single deck game so it's easy to determine TC. If its heads up play and after the first hand is done the following has come out: me:4,7,5 dealer:9,8. Hi-Lo count would be 2 and OII would be 4. Is this just where the BE comes into play?

 

[jack.jackson]

Alright, I am using the Omega II counting system and need some help. I use a 1:10 bet spread with a min bet of $10 and max of $100. Assume the following table:

count
0,1 = $10
2 = 20
3 = 30
4 = 40
5 = 50
6 = 60
>6 = 100

Hi lo uses only +1 for 2-6 and -1 for 10,A. 7,8,9 nothing.
Omega II uses +1 for 2,3,7...+2 for 4,5,6...-1 for 9...-2 for 10. 8/A nothing.

My question is that because the value of the cards are different do I have to adjust my betting table. Let's just say its a single deck game so it's easy to determine TC. If its heads up play and after the first hand is done the following has come out: me:4,7,5 dealer:9,8. Hi-Lo count would be 2 and OII would be 4. Is this just where the BE comes into play?

A little consideration: Unless your sidecounting aces the betting efficiency is gonna be a little weak? However you'll still be with an advantage. I presume your just learning the A02. Have you read BJFB? Zen is a more efficient count, with alot less effort.

As far as carlsons betting schemes go, theyre a little unorthodox and ya somewhat different to hi-lo, but thats more of a factor because ones a level2 and the others a level 1?

In the example above, for single deck(+4)for A02/Only two Index numbers are needed.

Good rules/ Bad rules
1D: +2+3 / +3+4
3/4 +1+2 / +2+3
1/2+0+1 / +1+2

Good rules: So after the first round your RC is +4 and even though its high enough to justify a max bet, only bet 20$

Win or loss, after the next round is dealt and 3/4 of the deck remain to be dealt and your RC is +2, bet 20x20

Win or lose, and 1/2 deck remaining your RC drops to 0
Reduce your bet to back to 20$(2units)

Note: carlson has a slight change in the betting scheme at 50% deck penetration! Ill have more to say about that later.

 

[zengrifter]

Alright, I am using the Omega II counting system and need some help.

First advice - switch to ZEN by simply swapping your current Ace and 9 count tags. zg

tags 2-A

AO2: 112221 0-1-2 0
ZEN: 112221 0-0-2-1

 

[rollem411]

Good rules: So after the first round your RC is +4 and even though its high enough to justify a max bet, only bet 20$

Win or loss, after the next round is dealt and 3/4 of the deck remain to be dealt and your RC is +2, bet 20x20

Win or lose, and 1/2 deck remaining your RC drops to 0
Reduce your bet to back to 20$(2units)

Ok but why would I only bet $20 if the count calls for a higher bet in +4 situations? I have not read BJFB, but I did make the minor adjustment to Zen for the BE.

 

[zengrifter]

Ok but why would I only bet $20 if the count calls for a higher bet in +4 situations?

Presumably for camoflauge in 1D games. And you would be betting 25-100, so its a 50 bet, not 20. I think thats what he's saying. zg

 

[jack.jackson]

Anyway, the reason we are spending so much time exploring thr Kelly System, and proportional betting in general, is because they form the theoretical basis for the betting strategies presented in this book. Beyond that, if you can understand how and why these systems work , your intuitive grasp of the game will increase sisnificantly, and you will much less likely to try tempting but fallacious alternatives.
Now, having said all these things about the kelly system , its time to address a few hard, real world facts. First off, no form of rigorous proportional betting can be used in actual casino play, and that definetly goes for the kelly system. Its easy enough to do it on a computer, but, but for any of the following reasons, theres no way to do it for real:

1. Money is not infinitely divisible.
2. The casino always has a minimum and maximum bet.
3.The player must bet, even when his expectation,(p-q) is zero or negative.
4. Bets generally cannot be made in odd change amounts.

And beyond that, can imagine the effect on a dealer if you jacked your bet from 1$ to, say, 125$ from one hand to the next. Poof! Instant shuffle. Do it again Poof! Instant 86.

So,because of these limitations, the betting Indices table of chapter 5 was created with both the idea of proportional betting and the reality of casino play in mind. It is a thoughtful compromise between theoretical possibilities and real-world possibilities.
Mathmaticians interested enough in blackjack to write about often become fascinated with proportional betting. They like its elegance and its power. So, natarully when they create a betting strategy of their own, they keep as close to the idea as they can and still make any kind of claim to practical use.
The problem with this approach is that it complicates play, which leads to errors, and ends up costing alot more in mistakes than it ever earns by squezing out a little extra theoretical profit. In addition to this, finely graduated betting points make the camoflauge betting techniques of chapter five more rigid, and therefore less natural looking and effective.
Nevertheless, compared to the ideal of true proportional betting, the betting Indices tables presented in this book differ enough to increase your chance of ruin slightly. This is the price of functionality with practicality, and the obvious fix is to size your stake in aconservative enough way to compensate for any increased volatility.
Bryce Carlson.

 

[jack.jackson]

Presumably for camoflauge in 1D games. And you would be betting 25-100, so its a 50 bet, not 20. I think thats what he's saying. zg

Yes, thats the 1-10 "short changing" shceme. The scheme is the same, but instead, were short changing our min to max bets. Like for the multiple deck betting strategy the betting schemes are the same as the 1 and 2 deck schemes but doing a 1-8 or a 1-12 spread WITHOUT short changing.
So for a 1-10 spread for a single deck game using the short change shceme would be 10$ min. 50$ bump, 50x50 max. And of course theirs are other, more conservative ways to go about a 1-10 spread.

 

[Sonny]

count
0,1 = $10
2 = 20
3 = 30
4 = 40
5 = 50
6 = 60
>6 = 100

That will work, but waiting for a +7 TC to make your max bet is a mistake. That will rarely happen. You should be making your max bet around +4 or +5. Something like this would be better:

0,1 = $10
2 = 20
3 = 40
4 = 80
>4 = 100

That strategy will also give you the chance to parlay your bets, which is easier and looks more natural.

Hi-Lo count would be 2 and OII would be 4. Is this just where the BE comes into play?

Exactly. The AOII will more accurately estimate your advantage. In this case, your actual advantage is bigger than HiLo would indicate (assuming your side count is neutral). A level 2 system will also recognize certain advantages that a level 1 system will not, so you will have more opportunities to raise your bets.

-Sonny-

 

[rollem411]

I switched to Zen because it was a very easy adjustment and the BE was a lot better...Do you think the 1:10 spread is good for 8D?

 

[zengrifter]

I switched to Zen because it was a very easy adjustment and the BE was a lot better...Do you think the 1:10 spread is good for 8D?

ONLY IF you avoid negative counts. zg

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

I just started testing Zen today. Noticed two things (probably deserves it's own topic)

1. Bigger fluctuations in running count.

2. Slightly better edge in negative TC.

I just used the trainer at slow speed but found myself gaining speed as the session went on. Lost track of my aces but other than that seem to be getting a handle on it.

Main result: In this limited test seem to have reduced my negative variance.