There can be only one !

[Rob McGarvey]

They are right. The Hi Opt II is the bomb. Some people will cut it down for what ever reason they have. The original version had you using a side count to keep track of Aces, but Uston developed a better Ace density method, so a true side count is not required. Some people find it hard to give cards different levels of value. Hi Opt II uses +1 +2 and -2, that's it. No -1. The only reason not to use Hi Opt II is if you can't keep track of the cards and make too many mistakes, then you should be using something easier and not as powerful.

 

[Mister M]

Re: Rob Please!

Can you please give the exact details of the method developed by Uston re: HI-OPT II?
I am constantly impressed with the scores of this system but currently use the ZEN with no ace SC due to the ease of use.

Many thanks Rob

M

P.S There seems to be some debate between OPT II and AOII with many players concluding vastly different scores. often with the OMEGA out scooring the OPT and vice versa. What is your opinion between these counts.

Without question the OPT II is easier to use than OMEGA.

 

[Rob McGarvey]

Re: Rob Please!

The original Humble version had the player counting the A as -2 against a +1 for the 3 and 6 cards from what Zengrifter used to tell me, but I can't see that anywhere in Humble's Hi Opt II manual. Uston's method is much more simple. You just have to know that each 1/4 deck should contain an A. If you haven't seen it come out, you can add +2 to your RC for BETTING purposes. For each 13 cards you should see an Ace.

For playing the A can work the other way. For instance, doubling 11. You will want to know how A rich the deck is. You may wish to use -2 for the RC for playing purposes at that point. I normally do not use A deficiency to drop my bets as Humble and Uston suggests, but that is just me. Now if all 4 are out of a single deck, or 8 out of a double, you may just want to flat bet $5 and get a good conversation going until the next shuffle. ;>

 

[Mister M]

Re: Again Please.

I was not aware that the Humble version counted the Ace as minus 2.
What have you got in your original booklet?
Was it not the general idea with the neutral counts such as the r14, uapc et al
that the ace be factored in rich or poor for betting plays only and otherwise ignored.

I do believe that the 3 & 6 were always +1 in the count irrespective of the ace's position or did this change also.

Can you give your opinions re; the aoII v optII in my previous post please Rob.
Many Thanks

 

[Rob McGarvey]

Re: Again Please.

AO II? I don't have access to that information and can't comment on it. The A side count has nothing to do with the main count which is 2367=1 45 =2 and10=-2.

 

[Cyrano]

Re: Again Please.

If you look at Blackjack Attack, in the Chapter listed as "Know the Score", you can see that Hi-Opt II consistently outperforms the AOII. The margin really isn't all that much--$1-3/100 hands played. If you compare Hi-Lo to Hi-OptII, you'll see that the difference is between $5-20/100 hands (if I'm reading the charts correctly), with the median closer to $10. I think it's not worth it for me to learn such a sophisticated system, where I have to do all sorts of funky contortionist tricks: true counting and Ace counting specifically. I opt for a lesser system that even though makes less money, it will let me play longer. Anyway, you asked why are there so many counting systems. There's a "best system" for each level of play. The problem is, which level do you want to play at? There's a best system for a Level 1 Balanced, Ace Neutral; Level 1 Balanced, Ace weighted; Level 2 Balanced Ace Neutral; Level 2 Balanced Ace Weighted; Level 3... Level 1 Unbalanced... .... ....

Hope this helps!

 

[CC-Management]

There is only one!!!!!

And we are that one "CARD COUNTER.COM HOME OF THE CARD COUNTING COMPUTER". Please fill out a profile and join our little group!