I have been playing blackjack for a couple of years and do ok.My question is I currently use the hi/lo counting system.I am reading the book blackjack for blood and it talks about the Omega II counting system.Does anyone use this system and do you think it would be beneficial to use as opposed to the hi/lo.
Thanks
Personally I wouldn't recommend using a difficult count like Omega II or Hi-Opt II unless you're going to play mostly 1 or 2 deck games. By the way, Hi-Opt II out-performs Omega II mostly because of it's higher insurance correlation. However, the betting efficiency of these systems is weak without a side count of aces. In single deck the side count of aces is not very important and will only increase performance slightly. For double deck you'll do OK without the side count but it's more important and you'll probably want to add it. In 6 decks or more the side count is necessary, and in my opinion much more difficult. Side counting aces requires additional brain power and you will tire more easily and probably make more mistakes than you realize.
You can still increase performance by upgrading to a higher level count but I would choose one that is ace reckoned (no side count). Look into Zen, Revere Point Count, Unbalanced Zen II, or Wong's Halves. Halves should out-perform Advanced Omega II in almost any game, if you don't like the fractions just multiply everything by 2 so that the tens are counted as -2 and the fives are +3 etc. Good luck!
dcbclimb,
You wrote:
In single deck the side count of aces is not very important and will only increase performance slightly. For double deck you'll do OK without the side count but it's more important and you'll probably want to add it. In 6 decks or more the side count is necessary, and in my opinion much more difficult.
Actually, you have that backwards: the ace side count (ASC) increases in importance as the number of decks decreases. The reason is that, as the number of decks decreases, the volatility of the ASC increases. This is exactly the same phenomenon seen in the traditional count: as the number of decks decreases, we see a higher fraction of hands with both very high and very low counts.
For example, go to the link shown below and select the following parameters from the drop-down lists at the top of the page: "Decks" SD, 13 cards cut; "Betting" No Cover; "Rules" H17; "Strategy" Omega II Side Count; "Table" Cumulative True Count. This will display the CVData output for a SD H17 game with 13 cards cutoff (and NO, I don't know where you can find this game!). With AOII, I place my max bet at +8. If you look at the "Hands Total" column, you'll see the TC was +8 of higher 16,442,582 times out of a total of 127,715,133 hands, or about 12.87% of the time. Thus, in this juicy SD game, we'd be max-betting just over 1/8th of the rounds.
Now go to the drop-down menu at the top of the page and change the "Decks" to 6D, 75% pen. Notice that the pen is exactly the same for both of these games: 75%. If you now look at the +8 and total numbers, you'll see that we're max-betting 15,012,847 times out of 512,298,797 hands, or only 2.93% of the time.
In a similar fashion, the ASC will also show a distribution of results, but the SD distribution will have more highs (and lows) than will the 6D distribution.
Since we make our money when the count (or the ASC) is high, the more often it's high, the more valuable the game.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
In single and double deck, Omega II will notice measurable improvement over High-Low without a side count of aces. In six decks if you do not side count the aces Omega II's performance will only be on par with High-Low. That is why I said it was necessary for 6 decks but not so much for 1 or 2 decks.
It's clear that a side count of aces will improve performance no matter how many decks. As you mentioned high counts do not occur as frequently in 6 decks, therefore when they do occur it is important that the betting correlation be as accurate as possible.
Bottom line I wouldn't recommend a level 2 system that requires a separate side count of aces, you'll be able to concentrate for longer periods and ultimately win more money without it.
dcbclimb,
First, I ran two sims of a SD game: H17, DA2, 6 rounds heads-up, for an AOII player spreading 1:4 in green (1 unit at +2 & down, 2 units at +3 to +7, 4 units at +8 & up). In the first sim, no Ace Side Count (ASC) was used; in the second, the AOII ASC was used. With no ASC, the player enjoyed an Initial Bet Advantage of 1.515% and placed his max bet on 14.88% of the hands; with the ASC, his IBA was 1.582% and he placed his max bet on 16.48% of the hands.
I then ran two more sims, this time for a 6D game: H17, DA2, DAS, 75% pen, heads-up, for an AOII player spreading 1:16 in green (1 unit at +1 & below, 2 at +2, 3 at +3, 4 at +4, 6 at +5, 8 at +6, 12 at +7, and 16 at +8 & up). In the first sim, no Ace Side Count (ASC) was used; in the second, the AOII ASC was used. With no ASC, the player enjoyed an Initial Bet Advantage of 0.841% and placed his max bet on 3.82% of the hands; with the ASC, his IBA was 0.905% and he placed his max bet on 4.56% of the hands.
If we consider just the improvement due to the ASC, for SD we get this:
IBA: (1.582-1.515)/1.515 = 0.044..., or a 4.4% improvement.
Max Bet %: (16.48-14.88)/14.88 = 0.1075..., or a 10.8% improvement.
For 6D we get this:
IBA: (0.905-0.841)/0.841 = 0.076..., or a 7.6% improvement.
Max Vet %: (4.56-3.82)/3.82 = 0.1937..., or a 19.4% improvement.
While it's true that the improvements are larger for 6D than for SD, I doubt anyone would consider a more than 4% improvement in edge to be insignificant.
Whether or not the "added strain" of keeping an ASC is worth the improvement gained is a question that must be answered by each individual. I've been doing it so long that, to me, keeping the ASC is second-nature.
Dog Hand
Per Professional Blackjack, if you switch to Halves, a 3rd level system, from Hi Lo, a single level system, in Wong's benchmark game your win rate goes from $16 a hundred hands to $17 a hundred hands. You do a lot more work with Halves. As Wong says, it's better to work on your act and be able to throw out a few more chips on your bets than switch to a more complex system which will tire you faster and may be prone to more errors.
For a second level system I like Arnold Snyder's ace inclusive Zen count.
A quick look at CVCX for the same SD and 6D games you simulated above...
SD H17 DA2 6 rounds Heads-Up, 1-4 spread
HiLo: IBA = 1.500%
Zen: IBA = 1.584%
Halves: IBA = 1.585%
Compared to your results for...
AOII: IBA = 1.515% (CVCX has 1.523%)
AOII with ASC: IBA = 1.582% (CVCX has 1.582%)
6D H17 DA2 DAS 75% Heads-Up, 1 - 16 spread
HiLo: IBA = .846%
Zen: IBA = .907%
Halves: IBA = .906%
Compared to your results...
AOII: IBA = .841% (CVCX has .845%)
AOII with ASC: IBA = .905% (CVCX has .945%, with your bet ramp it's .888%)
I wouldn't side count aces but if someone wanted to I would go with Hi-Opt II, at least it out performs the ace reckoned counts.
Thanks for the information.I am going to use the KO system and see how it performs.I really dont want to use a sidecount of aces,unless it is absolutely necessary.I loaded the KO system in my PBA analyzer and it shows it to be a little better than the Hi/Lo.Does using more than a single level counting system give you that much more of an edge.Can anyone give me any information on betting spreads.I know this is a long read,just trying to get some useful information.
Like the man said, "play good games, count accurately,get the money out"
Keep it simple by all means.
In your first post you mentioned that you use Hi-Lo and do "ok". You must play pitch games because HiLo will almost always beat KO in 6 decks. If you really want to upgrade look into Unbalanced Zen II, it's a simple yet powerful level 2 unbalanced count with no side count. It will out perform KO and HiLo across the board and is especially good for pitch games. KO will work also and if you want to win more money just bet more.
Changing to a more complicated system or to a multi-level system is difficult for many. The HI-Low is excellent for betting and easy to use. If you are playing multi deck games betting is more important than strategy changes. Betting is what makes the money. Betting correlation with Hi-Low is .97 and that's hard to beat with a simple system.
If you decide to change to a multi-level system consider the costs:
1)you have to learn a new count and betting strategy.
2)you have to practice..practice..practice.
3)you will be practicing when you should be playing.
4)not playing costs you money.
5)learning a new system means new numbers to learn.
6)learning multi system counts means decisions are more complicated.
7)keeping two counts is more tiring.
Consider what will you gain?
To win you must play without mistakes. A couple of mistakes per hour and you lose your advantage. You have to make decisions accurately and quickly. If you plan to play many hours then choose something that is not tiring or prone to make mistakes. No count strategy will yield big gains over the Hi-Low. More complex strategy systems might yield only fractions of a bet more per hour SO consider:
1)practice your style of play with better timing, not staring at the cards or discard rack and looking like a citizen.
2)practice your betting style so as to look like a gambler.
3) play an hour more with something easier to use and get the same or better results!
Take it easy on yourself and practice to stay in business.
