Sunday morning wisdom

[Royam]

Q: how long does it take before you got to flip your pancakes to have them cooked properly?

A: the time it takes for a beginner to count through a single deck.

Royam, looking forward to the day he'll be eating raw pancakes on Sunday mornings

P.S. I'd be interested to know who's using which counting system, because I had chosen halves count and am now reading "The world's greatest BJ book" and the author keeps saying Hi-Opt I is the best (it's an old book though, maybe outdated?). One thing he says and that seems valid is that aces should be counted as 0 for playing strategy and as 1 for betting strategy. Therefore the best would be to use Hi-Opt I and later add a separate ace count for betting purposes... Any comment?

 

[john]

not a fan of side counts

I'm not a fan of side counts. Some people use them but I think it is too much to keep track of. I happen to have a normal IQ. Peter Griffin, in his Theory of Blackjack, states that using a side count of 6s,7s, or 8s would greatly increase a player's playing efficiency. Keeping a side count of Aces with the Hi-opt I would increase your betting efficiency. How long can you keep something like that up is the question you need to ask? I'm usually only on the table when I have the advantage so a side count really doesn't help me much.

Hi-opt I with a side count of say the 2 and A would make it the Hi-Lo count of course with the playing efficiency of the Hi-Opt I. If you have the brain to do this, I would go one step further and learn the Hi-Opt II with an Ace side count. I believe Automatic can help you with that, maybe. You would really want to have a side count if you are planning on playing all, and if you are planning on playing double deck or single deck. Playing efficiency won't help you all that much on 6 deck and 8 deck games. Also, if you are planning on playing high stakes, I would definitely not use the Hi-Opt I because I don't feel it is powerful enough.

I used to look at what count had a better score but now it is just a matter of personal preference of what feels comfortable.

Also, don't believe anything that Max Rubin says. Avoid him. That should be my signature.

 

[Sonny]

Sunday evening wisdom

> P.S. I'd be interested to know who's using which counting system...

I use the Hi-Opt II. It uses the ace side count, so the playing efficiency is higher than an ace-reckoned system. Using the side count brings the betting efficiency from .91 to around .97 so you don't lose anything by not counting the aces in the main count. The side count is a little tricky for shoe games, but I think it is definately worth the effort.

Check out this website for a more in-depth comparison:

http://www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm

>...because I had chosen halves count and am now reading "The world's greatest
> BJ book" and the author keeps saying Hi-Opt I is the best (it's an old book
> though, maybe outdated?).

The book is outdated. Many of the win rates are not applicable in today's games, the sections on cheating are overblown and some of the advice is a bit silly (like avoiding "mean looking" dealers). Still, the systems are good.

> One thing he says and that seems valid is that aces should be counted as 0
> for playing strategy and as 1 for betting strategy. Therefore the best would
> be to use Hi-Opt I and later add a separate ace count for betting purposes...
> Any comment?

The HI-Opt I is a good system, but without the side count it is very inefficient and hardly worth the effort. You might be better off using HI-Low. It is much more effective and you can always add a side count later.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I agree

If you are playing shoe, I would not recommend either Hi-Opt without the ace sidecount because in shoe you need a very large spread, and the larger the spread, the more important your betting correlation is. Halves is a difficult count without the sidecount but if you can handle it you've got yourself a very powerful system for shoe. After it's easy for you you can add an ace sidecount to increase your insurance correlation.