+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Hi-Lo vs. Hi-Opt II

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,347

    Default Hi-Lo vs. Hi-Opt II

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    I knew Hi-Opt II was more powerful than Hi-Lo, but until today when I ran simulations on CVCX with a certain PA game (8 decks LS S17, DOA, I had no clue just how much it blows Hi-Lo out of the water. Assuming you wong out at -2 TC and come back in at any point higher than that, here are the results with a 1-16 spread:

    Hi-Opt II WR: $53.75/hr Score 62.17 1.719% IBA
    Hi-Lo: WR: $17.51/hr Score 42.8 1.62% IBA

    This can't be right can it??? I happened to also notice the Standard deviation was much higher for Hi-Opt II given the same betting ramp. Any idea why this is? Only thing I can think of is that it has you putting out max bets far more often.
    Your ramp is wrong. A TC of +2 in Hi-Opt II is approximately equal to +1 in High-Low, +4 in Hi-Opt II is approximately equal to +2 in High-Low, and so on.

    Hi-Opt II with the ace sidecount (either method) will be worth about 10-15% more in a shoe game than High-Low, and 15-25% more in a pitch game. So when your sim gives you a result like that, you know you have it right. The better the pen, the bigger the difference.

  2. #2

    Default

    Does anyone on this board use the Hi-opt II count? If so how do you bet with this card counting strategy?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    Does anyone on this board use the Hi-opt II count? If so how do you bet with this card counting strategy?
    Per ZGI I switched from HO2 to ZEN in the early-80s. The tag values (increase per + tick) are nearly identical and my betting ramp really never changed.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Per ZGI I switched from HO2 to ZEN in the early-80s. The tag values (increase per + tick) are nearly identical and my betting ramp really never changed.
    Why did you switch strategies?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    3,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    Why did you switch strategies?
    He explains somewhat in depth in the ZGI as he calls it.

  6. #6

    Default

    How does the betting ramp work/correlate with Hi-opt II TC. Starting from a flat bet, how should a player adjust his bet ramp according to how the creator of that counting system recommends in his report? Basically what I am asking is how should I vary my bets on differing True Counts with Hi-opt II? I'm currently using the REKO strategy and Norm listed a betting ramp to use with that strategy which I have become proficient in using.
    Last edited by Blitzkrieg; April 8th, 2014 at 03:39 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
    How does the betting ramp work/correlate with Hi-opt II TC. Starting from a flat bet, how should a player adjust his bet ramp according to how the creator of that counting system recommends in his report?
    Partly depends on BR size and house rules/house starting advantage.

    For example, each +1 uptick = +.25% (assuming a count-per deck TC)

    Example (2D w/.50 house starting edge & 800u BR)

    +0-+2 : 0-2hands x 1u
    +2-+3 : 2hands x 1-2u
    +4-+5 : 2hands x 3-4u
    +6-+7 : 2hands x 5-6u

    Anyone care to refine or correct by ramp scheme, please jump in.

    Blitz, IMO you would be better served to switch to ZEN or even the count-per-2D TC Mentor.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  8. #8

    Default

    Okay, does the author of the Zen count list a betting ramp to use with the Zen count in his book "Blackbelt in Blackjack?" If so, I'll check it out.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Partly depends on BR size and house rules/house starting advantage.

    For example, each +1 uptick = +.25% (assuming a count-per deck TC)

    Example (2D w/.50 house starting edge & 800u BR)

    +0-+2 : 0-2hands x 1u
    +2-+3 : 2hands x 1-2u
    +4-+5 : 2hands x 3-4u
    +6-+7 : 2hands x 5-6u

    Anyone care to refine or correct by ramp scheme, please jump in.

    Blitz, IMO you would be better served to switch to ZEN or even the count-per-2D TC Mentor.
    Yeah, I have some comments about this ramp. Mathematically, it may be sound, but practically, at least here in Vegas, you will have a very short career. Times have changed. Spreading to two hands has become the single biggest 'tell', especially in the extremely 'hawked' double deck games. If you spread to 2 hands, a couple times, you will be backed off, before you even get to 2hands x 3-4u.

    If you are intent on incorporating spreading from single hand to two hands as part of your attack in double deck, you are better off playing 2 off the top and dropping to one hand at tc -1, but even that isn't going to buy you much. Moving from 1 hand to 2 hands and back has just become very toxic as far as double deck games. Still doable, within reason at most 6 deck games.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KJ View Post
    Yeah, I have some comments about this ramp. Mathematically, it may be sound, but practically, at least here in Vegas, you will have a very short career. Times have changed. Spreading to two hands has become the single biggest 'tell', especially in the extremely 'hawked' double deck games. If you spread to 2 hands, a couple times, you will be backed off, before you even get to 2hands x 3-4u.
    I think you'll recall that my preferred approach is to start out with 2-3 hands and then consolidate to 1 as the count rises.
    But in my above example I was not spreading to 2 - I was playing 2 hands at all counts. Does that fair better? O' Prince of Count?
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    I think you'll recall that my preferred approach is to start out with 2-3 hands and then consolidate to 1 as the count rises.
    But in my above example I was not spreading to 2 - I was playing 2 hands at all counts. Does that fair better? O' Prince of Count?
    I honestly don't know, so can't say. Obviously consolidating from multiple hands to a single hand during plus counts is going to be the opposite of what they are really focused on, but the issue of switching either way has just become so toxic, that it is an attention getter, which in my book is a bad thing.

    Question: If you are consolidating to a single hand, aren't you going to need a bigger spread to overcome the multiple hands in negative situations? I mean that too is going to be a problem at least in Vegas. But I do like the thinking outside the box, approach.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KJ View Post
    Question: If you are consolidating to a single hand, aren't you going to need a bigger spread
    to overcome the multiple hands in negative situations?
    No actually.

    Consider the simplistic example with a mythically good 1D game - bet 3hands of 1u in neutral and minus and bet 1hand of 3-5u in plus.

    Now since such games are virtually extinct, we apply this concept to a really good 2D=
    3hnd of 1u in minus-zero,
    1hnd of 3u in modest plus
    1hnd of parlay to 6u in stronger plus

    An apparent net-effective 2D spread of 1-2?
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  13. #13

    Default

    I'm going to try Grifter's Gambit style on our better DD games...........and see what happens if can handle the additional "increased minimum bets" required on each hand. We did have one house that didn't require you to double the minimum on two hands but I think they have gone the usual way of the other houses now.

    In reference to Zen and True edge v. True Count, I think Snyder has gone away from his position on "true edge" betting. Though reading his book it made sense to me. At least that's what I understand from other experts. In any event, here is a link that should give you some assistance on the true count indices, etc. regarding Zen from the "horse's mouth" so to speak.

    http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...nt_Indices.htm

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Jewmerica
    Posts
    856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDutton View Post
    The problem with the current edition of Blackbelt is that ZEN is constrained to a count-per-1/4D.
    The ZEN I was describing above is a count-per-deck, which I prefer

    There is some controversy surrounding the above -
    Norm Wattenberger vs Arnold Snyder on True Count vs True Edge ZEN
    Just use Zen/Omega as described by Bryce Carlson but assign aces as +1. It will invariably emerge as unbalanced but it is nevertheless a very strong count.

    Here is the DD count I personally use which out-performs HI-OPT II by a decent amount.

    +2 +2 +2 +3 +2 +1 0 0 -3 +1
    Insurance = +4
    Last edited by Svengarlicky; April 28th, 2016 at 04:23 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Jewmerica
    Posts
    856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MJOK View Post
    I'm going to try Grifter's Gambit style on our better DD games...........and see what happens if can handle the additional "increased minimum bets" required on each hand. We did have one house that didn't require you to double the minimum on two hands but I think they have gone the usual way of the other houses now.

    In reference to Zen and True edge v. True Count, I think Snyder has gone away from his position on "true edge" betting. Though reading his book it made sense to me. At least that's what I understand from other experts. In any event, here is a link that should give you some assistance on the true count indices, etc. regarding Zen from the "horse's mouth" so to speak.

    http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...nt_Indices.htm
    Snyder was virtually forced to abandon his true edge mantra due to extreme adversity from the AP community.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts