I’ve systematically tested almost all combinations of these three:
ASC parameter P = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4;
Deck resolution R= 1/4 deck, 1/2 deck;
Calculation location L = 1, 2, 3, … … 26.
For both Hi-Opt 1 and Hi-Lo, I find that the combinations (P, R, L) =(2, 1/4, 1) and (2, 1/2, 1) usually give the highest +EV, while (2, 1/4, 7) and (2, 1/2, 13) give a slightly lower +EV. The main result is that P =2 gives the highest +EV. This is surprising, because we are supposed to set P=1 for a level one count, but this is definitely not the correct parameter to optimize the +EV. Please double check here.
The betting levels are 10/20/40/60/80/100/120 at TC=0/1/2/3/4/5/6, respectively.
by: aceside
I am getting a slightly higher % of total bet when the ace side count is set to 2, 1/4, 1 than with 1, 1/4, 1 with hi-opt 1. And both are higher than with hi-opt 1 with no side count. I get .506%, .543%, and .407% respectively. I only added insurance and 16 v. 10 strategy variation to each run. Over emphasizing ace seems to give higher %.
Setting the add/subtract for Ace to 2 is a lot more aggressive than 1 so it makes sense that the average bet is higher since it does not lower the bet below the minimum but can raise the bet to the next level or 2 levels, or more.