Proposed New Tag Values - Comments and Beatings Welcome!

[Automatic Monkey]

Well this is a fairly standard game that can be played. H17, 6 Deck, 1.5 decks cut off, DAS. Hi Opt II with no side count and only illustrious 18 and Hi Lo with illustrious 18. The canned Hi Opt II doesn't even have the insurance bet at the correct count to make full use of the high IC.

One is a level 1 count and the other a level 2, so you cannot use the same spread. Every count needs it's own spread where the bet is proportional to the advantage at each count.

Try a couple of custom spreads where each count has the same bet out at 1% advantage, 1.5% advantage and so on, watch what happens.

 

[zengrifter]

Not currently side counting aces. Hope to do so when I find the system to use long term.

Decide on the right system and you won't need to side-count Aces. zg

 

[Deathclutch]

One is a level 1 count and the other a level 2, so you cannot use the same spread. Every count needs it's own spread where the bet is proportional to the advantage at each count.

Try a couple of custom spreads where each count has the same bet out at 1% advantage, 1.5% advantage and so on, watch what happens.

I tried another one here just using a real quick CVCX run to get the optimal spreads. That definitely closed the gap, and possibly with more tweaking High Low could overtake it, but I'm not sure. As a personal preference I would go with the level 2 because there's so much more room to improve. Learning the ace side count would make a lot of improvements and the index plays you learn beyond the Ill 18 will be better used with the higher PE. All in all, the point I was trying to get at is I don't think we need to be completely wrapped up in BC when the other two stats play a large role also. Good catch on the spread though, I didn't even realize that there would be so much difference.

 

[blackjack avenger]

In the Real World

As you employ a more complicated system; like using an A side count, you will have a higher error rate. This will cause the more complicated system to drop in value. So the difference in systems is probably not as high as one would think due to the higher error rate of a more complicated system.

We are only human:joker::whip:

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I tried another one here just using a real quick CVCX run to get the optimal spreads. That definitely closed the gap, and possibly with more tweaking High Low could overtake it, but I'm not sure. As a personal preference I would go with the level 2 because there's so much more room to improve. Learning the ace side count would make a lot of improvements and the index plays you learn beyond the Ill 18 will be better used with the higher PE. All in all, the point I was trying to get at is I don't think we need to be completely wrapped up in BC when the other two stats play a large role also. Good catch on the spread though, I didn't even realize that there would be so much difference.

Oh sure. There is really no way to make a perfect comparison between a level 1 and level 2 system.

But to continue your experiment, now substitute Zen for High-Low, and use the exact same spread and deck estimation parameters as you are for the HO2 player. You'll see that Zen will excel, and if you go to a game with better rules and a larger spread RPC will beat Zen. Thus if you are going to use level 2 and not sidecount aces, why mess with HO2 when you can just use Zen?

 

[muppet]

why use HO2 for a 6D game?!

 

[zengrifter]

Not currently side counting aces. Hope to do so when I find the system to use long term.

Ahh Grasshopper, but the system to use long term does not entail a side count of Aces. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Hi-Opt II is nearly as good, just as hard to count. The VAPC is very slightly better. Why not use the better of the two? I comes down to ease of use for me. If it is easier, maybe I can side count aces too.

Fuhgetaboutit! zg

 

[zengrifter]

One is a level 1 count and the other a level 2, so you cannot use the same spread. Every count needs it's own spread where the bet is proportional to the advantage at each count.

Try a couple of custom spreads where each count has the same bet out at 1% advantage, 1.5% advantage and so on, watch what happens.

Carefull there Dr. Monk, it could be a death trap errr clutch.
The last time they got us on the HO2/ZEN showdown. zg

 

[MountainMan]

Aces

Ahh Grasshopper, but the system to use long term does not entail a side count of Aces. zg

OK! Ok! NO ACE SIDE COUNT! Try: A-X 0,1,1,1.5,2,1.5,1,0,0,-2.

Balanced. PE = 67.91; BE = 91.19.

Easier to count than the Halves count. Insurance = 91.67

Would use this count for DD, Zen for multiple decks. Counts are similiar, switching between the two should be easy.

I'll run indexes and compare.

MM

 

[zengrifter]

OK! Ok! NO ACE SIDE COUNT! Try: A-X 0,1,1,1.5,2,1.5,1,0,0,-2.

Balanced. PE = 67.91; BE = 91.19.

Easier to count than the Halves count. Insurance = 91.67

Would use this count for DD, Zen for multiple decks. Counts are similiar, switching between the two should be easy.

I'll run indexes and compare.

MM

At the risk of being redundant... FUHGETABOUTIT! ...

...you ONLY need ONE COUNT, and it neither should be level-3 nor Ace-neutral, cape'ce? zg

 

[Deathclutch]

At the risk of being redundant... FUHGETABOUTIT! ...

...you ONLY need ONE COUNT, and it neither should be level-3 nor Ace-neutral, cape'ce? zg

I agree with this here. If you're mainly going to play shoe games then Zen will work just fine for you.

 

[Deathclutch]

Oh sure. There is really no way to make a perfect comparison between a level 1 and level 2 system.

But to continue your experiment, now substitute Zen for High-Low, and use the exact same spread and deck estimation parameters as you are for the HO2 player. You'll see that Zen will excel, and if you go to a game with better rules and a larger spread RPC will beat Zen. Thus if you are going to use level 2 and not sidecount aces, why mess with HO2 when you can just use Zen?

I have no doubt that Zen will beat Hi Opt II without the side count (in multiple deck play). I just wanted to make clear that the supposed superiority of the ace reckoned level 1 and the none ace reckoned level 2 just isn't real. Plus if someone ever decides to play single and double deck then they're just a step ahead of the game.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I agree with this here. If you're mainly going to play shoe games then Zen will work just fine for you.

It'll work just fine for pitch games too. In most situations, the differences between counts are so small that you'd have to play a few lifetimes of blackjack to expect to see a difference.

I like running count systems for pitch games, myself, because the inaccuracy caused by not true counting is often less than the inaccuracy caused by rounding decks and quotients.

 

[MountainMan]

Thanks for listening. Moving on. MM

 

[zengrifter]

Thanks for listening. Moving on. MM

I recommend Renzey's Mentor count with 2DTC calibration. zg

 

[MountainMan]

Automatic Monkey

Try this one:

Main count: 0,0,1,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2
Sidecount: A= -2, 2 & 3 = +1

Have been playing around with this count you suggested a while back, with a slight twist. A= -1, 2 = +1. I'm curious to know who originated the main count. Having good results playing DD and with ease of use. It syms out about 15% better than Zen without a side count.

Have also used the side count with Zen with very similar results. The Zen version seems to win a little less but usually has a higher SCORE.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm also curious whether you have personally used the suggested side tag values.

MM