blackjack for blood

what do you guys think of this book?

but rather dated.

I was under the impression AOII was one of the very best advanced counting systems.

I'm just curious what has transpired in the world of BJ to say it's dated.

thanks in advance,
Francis

I use AOII when I play. The book is excellent, as is the system. I bought the book and learnt the system because it at the time seemed to be the most powerful and comprehensive system available in one book. Wong's Professional Blackjack is much more comprehensive, but AOII is, in my opinion, more powerful and slightly easier to use. I have run countless simulations with AOII, comparing with other powerful systems such as Hi Opt II.

It's a winner.

Having never played before about a year ago, it was a very steep learning curve getting used to it. It's still a bit of a mind bender in some respects, such as accurate true count conversion. Would I put myself through this again? Probably, because I wanted to be the best I could be at the game, and know as much as I could about the changing composition of the deck, giving me confidence in playing and betting, and I wanted to be a good long-term player.

If you want to be a good powerful player, then go for it. If you just want a bit of fun, and not too much work, go for Knockout Blackjack.

Make sure you do plenty of additional reading from other respected writers such as Stanford Wong, Arnold Snyder and Don Schlesinger, to name three.

I'm happy to discuss in more detail if you have any further questions. I don't propose to be an expert, but I've learnt heaps from books, some experience, and from this website (thanx guys).

Alan

Alan I became interested in blackjack approx. 1 1/2 years ago and purchased KO Blackjack. After learning it I felt I needed to "upgrade" and subsequently chose BJ 4 Blood(AOII) and after many, many study sessions and many, many, many headaches I opted to go back to KO. It's so simple and can be modified 4 added power.

I still maintain quite an interest in AOII and wonder how you've progressed with it. My 2 biggest concerns w/ AOII were errors and how long I would be able to play without my head spinning. Any info you could provide would be of great interest to myself.

Jayel

"I was under the impression AOII was one of the very best advanced counting systems

It is.

I'm just curious what has transpired in the world of BJ to say it's dated.

AOII is not outdated, not in the slightest. However, certain parts of Blackjack for Blood are showing their age a bit.

The book was originally published in 1992. There have been several revisions, but no major rewrite.

Ten years ago is hardly ancient history, but at that point the average player (or blackjack writer) did not have today's easy access to powerful computers and high speed simulators. As a result, the bet ramp Carlson describes is somewhat less than optimal, and some of the indices are off a bit, although they are still perfectly usable.

If you learn the AOII system, and use a betting ramp developed with BJRM2000 or CVCX, you will indeed be using one of the most powerful counting systems available today.

When playing double deck DOA, S17 what true count(s) do you use to vary your bets?

For example when playing 1-6 or 1-8 spread, I would theoretically bet 1 unit for negative TC up to and including TC +1. then at TC +2 I would bet two units then around TC +3 or TC +3.5 depending on how much of the deck is left, I would go to four then either six or eight units.

I think this is pretty close to what the book recommends in the section about when to increase your bets, except for the spread of course.

Your theoretical assumptions are correct. Player advantage occurs about TC +2. At TC +5 you could theoretically go for max bet, but if you want to reduce your risk of ruin (which will affect win rate) then I would wait for TC to go even higher. The opportunities are less frequent but if your bankroll is small it's probably worth it to play it safer until your bankroll grows.

I understand and sympathise with your concerns. They are valid. After all, what's the point of having a powerful card counting if you're going to make errors.

Can I suggest that unless you're prepared to really work at it, I'd stick with KO. You can get around the headaches with using AOII, but it takes a lot of time and hard work. I think it's worth it, but my friends wouldn't think so.

Do you know all the indices yet? This is how I learnt AOII.

I divided each line into Player vs Dealer 2 to 6 and Player vs Dealer 7 to A to create "strings" of indices to memorise. This way, I would be able to recollect the strings of indices without error, and later associate individual plays with individual indices.

An example:

12 v 2 - Stand 5, 2, 0, -2, -2 (which represents v 2, 3, 4, 5,6)
12 v 7 - Hit (which represents 7, 8, 9, 10 A)

I would then rehearse them like times tables.

Until they are thoroughly learned you should use basic strategy. You will find that you will be using basic strategy most of the time anyway, even after you have learned AOII thoroughly.

Now true count conversion: That's another story. For me, the best way I've found is to learn what the true count equivalent is for each running count number per half deck or quarter deck. This is a lot of work but it means that there is less calculating to do on the spot and therefore less pressure during play.

In order to play well, you need to have downtime during your play. If you don't you will be "full on" all the time and you will crack when the pressure gets too great. The way to do is to play basic strategy on all negative counts (unless the indices are easily recalled) because this is when you're less likely to win anyway and you will theoretically have minimum bets out. This will give you breathing space and time to gather your composure for the big counts when they come.

The beauty of AOII is that it gives you a clear idea of when you have the betting advantage (especially if you side count aces - goes from .92 to .99 efficiency). With KO you're flying a little blind, because I think any advantage is understated early to mid deal and overstated near the shuffle. I think this is the nature of unbalanced systems.

The other advantage with AOII is that, with so many indices, you get a pretty clear idea how close you are to varying your strategy. This, for me, creates confidence in playing (and in varying from basic strategy when required.) This is like a big picture view of the game in progress.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask more specific questions if you wish, or email directly.

Alan

Hi, Parker.

I'm an AOII user. I've run the system through SBA and came up with slightly different indices. When I ran them through CVCX and compared them with AOII original indices on CVCX, the original indices came out ahead.

You mentioned that some indices are slightly off. If you know which ones, I'd really appreciate knowing what they are, so I can test them, and incorporate them into my play.

Hope you can help.

Thanks.

Most of you AOII folks are probably aware that Carlson's indices assume S17 in their base ruleset and that he provides 9 variations for H17. My 2 questions are:

1. Are Carlsons 9 variations the most significant variations for H17

for S17? I've always believed they were since they were the ones

he included and he generally had an I-18 sort of perspective.

2. Has anyone developed other indices for H17?

Since S17 was more prevalent when BJFB came out, I presume that's why
Carlson used S17 for his primary matrix. With S17 getting scarcer by the day, It would really be nice to have the full matrix for H17.

Spok

Just wanted to say thanks for your memorizing tips. As a Hi/Lo I18 guy I find it difficult to learn the memorize the AOII indices because #1 I would memorize each index one by one (i.e. 12/2 +5, 12/3 +2, etc...) and #2 I would often wonder if I was confusing the AOII strategy with the Hi/Lo strategy. I'd end up returning to the Hi/Lo count.

Using your method it should be a lot easier to keep the two counts separate. Thanks again.

I have additional indices for DHS17. I haven't run them through a simulation yet but I'm confident that they are accurate. Let me know if you are still interested.

I'd much appreciate it. Thanks.

Spok

Here goes:

The modifications occur to dealer has 6 or A.

5 v 6 d23/h
6 v 6 d21/h
7 v 6 d15/h

15 v 6 s-19/h
16 v 6 s-22/h

s16 v 6 d-18/h
s17 v 6 d-21/h
s18 v 6 d-14/s

9's v 6 p-11/s or p-16/s if DAS

13 v A s21/h (this may already be in bjfb - can't remember)
9's v A p10/s or p7/s if DAS

As you can see by the numbers, their occurence is quite rare.

These figures I extrapolated using Hi Opt II as a guide. They should be pretty right.

Two other figures that might be worth considering and testing are:

s18 v 2 d0/s
s19 v 6 d0/s

I can't confirm these two as yet, but they would occur more frequently than the abovementioned figures, so it would be worth following through. Let me know what the outcome was if you do please.

I also have figures for ENHC if and when you're interested.

By the way, if you're side counting Aces, you might be interested to know that you can slightly improve the insurance efficiency as well as the betting efficiency of AOII.

As you know, for betting purposes only you add 2 to the RC for each overdue Ace per quarter deck still in the pack. For insurance you subtract 1 to the RC for each overdue Ace still in the pack.

Let me know if I can help you with anything else.

Alan