Halves versus Hi Opt 2 challengers

It is NOT my intention to start another count debate. But rather put an end to the mindless drivel regarding counts at BJTF once and for all.

I do not believe these professors can even maintain their complex counts over the course of two decks, let alone 6. When I was in business, it was all about efficiency and avoiding bottle necks in production. The fastest way to perform a step is eliminating it all together.

So, hopefully someone out there will run a sim to compare these two counts for todays most common rules on 6 deck shoes. BJTF will drive the normal course of “kick the can” forever and never come to a conclusion. 55 posts and counting that said nothing. What a waste!

According to a page in Norm's book, Wong Halves already outperforms Hi Opi II. But one doesn't have to perform a side count with Wong Halves and Hi Opt II is virtually worthless without side counting the Ace. Why the extra step for a lower SCORE?

These SIMS are somewhat ridiculous. For one thing, they include strategies that are not practical for actual casino play. It really is just a pissing contest for which one has the highest SCORE. But as long as we're pissing, we may as well see the final tally. No?

KJ could speak to what is necessary in terms of indices and the do's and don'ts of actual shoe play. He could also speak to the fallacy claimed by those who sit through negative shoes with numerous players at the table. But, for now, that would only confuse the issue.

The many steps of a Tarzan count and it still doesn't out perform Hi Opt II. The extra steps of Hi Opt II and it can't outperform Wong Halves. Imagine if one added those steps to Wong Halves.

It is not about Level 2 or Level 3. It IS about the number of various tag values assigned.

If no one can actually run this SIM, then why the need for Qfit product? I will run a Sim if someone will provide me with the most common rules and acceptable spreads for shoes.

Okay, Moses run your sim.

Most common rules for today's 6 deck game is H17, DAS, RSA, No Surrender, and pen 4.5/6. Use 1 to 12 spread. Assume 4 players. Hi-Opt II will out perform Halves.

Thanks Midwest Player. I use CV Data. What are the most common rules on Double Downs for 6 decks?

Any hard hand? Any soft hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

Thanks Midwest Player. I use CV Data. What are the most common rules on Double Downs for 6 decks?

Any hard hand? Any soft hand?

---

Most common rule is double on any first two cards.

Wong Halves SCORE 19.35 Winrate $73.27

Hi Opt II ASC SCORE 16.97 Winrate $60.52


Wong Halves would be even higher if you used the 10 count for perfect insurance which is the same amount of brainpower used to side the Ace with Hi Opt II ASC.

Okay, Moses what sim rules or parameters did you use to run your sims. The example I put up was a canned sim, but I will re-run in CVCX with the same parameters as you used. I don't believe you when you say Halves outperforms HiOpt II. I don't have CVDATA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Okay, Moses what sim rules or parameters did you use to run your sims. The example I put up was a canned sim, but I will re-run in CVCX with the same parameters as you used. I don't believe you when you say Halves outperforms HiOpt II. I don't have CVDATA.

---

I used the same rules you gave me. The exception was I went 1 to 15 on betting for both because it was the primary choice.

Maybe someone can run the sim for you on CV data over there. Point is, to perform an Ace side count it requires an extra action and another number or letter to hold in memory.

If should be fairly simple. Just provide the same figures as you did for me. Only 1 to 15 is the set selection. However, it is the same for both. So that should be a non factor.

Even Flash said himself that Wong Halves will outperform Hi Opt II in a shoe game and that's with only one action and no side counts. But if you employed a second action, like a 10 count for perfect insurance, then Wong Halves really begins to pull away from the rest of the field. Thus negates all the forum rhetoric regarding counts. I'm not exactly sure what Freighter is doing. But if you drop the A it will improve insurance. Or if you side count and make it a positive number it will improve insurance even more.

Attached is a page from Modern Blackjack. I don't fully understand it. Maybe Norm will explain it to you. But as you see, they run very close. But one action with Wong Halves and two with Hi Opt II. If you go two on Wong Halves, okay call it something different like FBC nut scratcher, but it will pull away another 10% to 15%.

https://www.qfit.com/book/SuperSCORE.htm

I think your missing the point of Freighters thread. It's easier to say Wong Halves. But okay, just for you, the tags are 2,7 .5; 346 1; 5 1.5 vs
9 -.5 10,A -1.

This whole thread is just "chasing pennies".

I understand KJ. That is not the point. The whole thing needs to be put to bed for good. A 552 post thread on a count for shoes with at least 2 side counts that greatly under performs Tarzan, Hi Opt II, Wong Halves, and Felt. Personally, when it comes to shoes, I agree with you and Bosox. I just can't stand to watch the monkey fuck the football anymore.

Wong Halves SCORE 19.35 Winrate $73.27

Hi Opt II ASC SCORE 16.97 Winrate $60.52

FBC with ten count SCORE 22.25 Winrate $84.26


I ran my numbers, based on Midwest Players criteria, on CV Data and these are the results. Hard numbers. No Votes. I do not know how to take a snapshot. Please advise.

Moses, do you have Windows 10 on your computer? If so type in "snipping tool" in the "Type here to search" box on the task bar. The snipping tool will come up. I actually then pinned it to the task bar, but you don't have to. With the snipping tool click on new and then you can drag the cursor to outline the sim picture. Then "save as" to your computer and then you can upload the picture to this site. I believe Windows 7 also has a snipping tool, but don't know about that. If you have CVCX do your sim with that. I don't have CVData.

The experts at BJTF (Don & Norm) both say you are wrong. Hi-Opt II outperforms Halves, and the sims I ran also confirm this.

The one on top is Hi Opt II. The one below is Wong Halves.

Here is the problem....has always been the problem with this discussion: Guys "cherry pick" the results to suit what they want them to be.

If you are comparing different counts, of similar strength, which is what this is, you can manipulate the results. Some counts work best with deeper penetration, some with lite spread, others with heavier spreads, also the ramp, how quickly you spread up plays a role. Some are stronger one way, while another may be stronger another way.

Guys always cherry pick the exact conditions in which the count they are promoting or if not promoting, the count they favor (for whatever reason) does better. Count ABC may perform a little better than count DEF with such and suck penetration, or spread, but change the penetration, or spread, or how quickly you ramp up and the results can be flipped.

And here is the important part: In the end, IN MOST CASES, it makes very little difference. Pennies!

Most players do not play one singular game, with the same parameters every time they play. I, for example, play double deck, I play 6 deck, I play 8 deck. Double deck penetrations ranging from 60% to 75%, shoe game penetrations ranging from 75% to....90%, even 92%. And I play not only different spreads, but different ramps (how quickly you ramp up to max bet). If I were to compare two similarly strength counts, I would probably find one slightly superior at one set of parameters and another just a hair better at another.

Granted not everyone plays as wide a variety of games and conditions as I do, but, I am just saying, these numbers don't mean as much as people make them out to. A simulation is simply a tool, not an end all to any discussion. And one other thing to consider, those of us that play for real, play at a felted table inside a brick and mortar casino, not on a computer. That has always been one of the problems with simulations.

Both must be played flawlessly to achieve those results. Never happening in the real world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Both must be played flawlessly to achieve those results. Never happening in the real world!

---

Exactly! Only happens that way on your computer screen. (which is the only place some of these guys actually play). :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Here is the problem....has always been the problem with this discussion: Guys "cherry pick" the results to suit what they want them to be.

---

I agree. But I wanted complete unbiased results. I simply put in the data that Midwest Player supplied to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Both must be played flawlessly to achieve those results. Never happening in the real world!

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Exactly! Only happens that way on your computer screen. (which is the only place some of these guys actually play). :rolleyes:

---

I may well be the only guy in the world who has played a million hands at the casino and on Verite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

And one other thing to consider, those of us that play for real, play at a felted table inside a brick and mortar casino, not on a computer. That has always been one of the problems with simulations.

---

For me, the casino is simply an extension of practice. No tricks. No surprises. Consistency within their tolerance. But that's SDSU.

The thing that is never, ever taken in to consideration is a higher error rate. Players always dismiss a higher error rate with some kind of general statement about playing such an such a count just as efficiently. That is complete nonsense. Scientifically proven nonsense. A very important piece of information, In Norm's book, Modern Blackjack, found on page 240 count comparison is the following line: "Level I and level II strategies are handled in a fundamentally different manner by the brain." The brain processes the information completely differently. It may seem the same, but it is not. Numerous studies have proven this. And the importance of this is different....higher error rates for some things vs others.

In the case referenced in Norm's book it was a level 1 count vs a level 2. Moses is comparing a level 2 to a level 3. Same exact thing, you must account for a higher error rate and nobody ever does. How much of a higher error rate? I don't know. Is it enough to wipe out any benefit that a simulation might show? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe for some players, but not others. But by god, you have to account for the error rate, because it is there in real world play and these guys that live and die by their simulations NEVER do.