A v. 3

In hi-opt 1, I keep a block count of aces against 3s. For every four Aces that are currently out to one 3 (for every three extra), or for every for four 3s to one ace, would it be advantageous to temporarily add +1 to the play count for strategy deviations?

Plugging .33 into either the ace or the 3 in the blackjack efficiency calculator, when otherwise looking at hi-opt 1, yields an extra advantage. However, I suppose the calculator is assuming some sort of unbalanced approach. Any thoughts?

I dont use a variation of hi-opt 1, ace-neutral rpc. so if u attempt to replicate the results and fail, that is why.

Rather than side counting Aces vs. 3s, why don't you side count only the aces to adjust your betting levels and then use ace-multiparameter tables listed in Humble's book to adjust your playing strategy? That would seem to improve the single parameter Hi Opt I system to a degree. There are multiparameter tables available for the Hi Opt I for the other zero valued 2s, 7s, 8s and 9s.

The Hi Opt II system has full multiparameter tables if you want to side count all of the zero value cards (Aces, 8s and 9s).

Also how does side counting Aces and 3s relate to the RPC? I assume by RPC you mean the Revere Point Count. I believe you would need to side count Aces(-1) vs. 2s(+1/2) and 7s(+1/2) and combine them to become equivalent to the RPC for betting decisions.

I don't use a multiparamater system. I use RPC by default. I neutralize the ace to improve playing efficiency. I find it easier to balance the Aces against the 3s easier than taking a side count of aces alone. Thus, for betting, I simply add this count to my play count. I ask this question because I have extra info, and I want to utilize it to the fullest extent possible. I did not count this way intending to do anything other than neutralize the ace.

It relates to RPC because when you add that side count in to the play count, it is RPC. In the play count, I count 2s and 7s as half the value of 4s thru 6s (which is the same balance, with less efficiency, as counting the 2 and 7 as zero, and the 3 as one, as you see in the actual hi-opt 1 count).

I hope this adequately sheds light on things. The question remains. Would increasing the play count for a skewed distribution (=1 per 3 cards extra), result in an increase in PE?