Illustrious 18 for HiOpt II?

On the Illustrious 18 in Blackjack Attack, the maximum index number for these is 5. Don Schlesinger also uses 2 hands of 6 units at true counts of +5 or higher. However, when looking at my indexes for HiOptII for these same plays, the index numbers range up to +8 for 10's vs 5 and doubling 10 vs 10. There are also 3 +7's and a couple of +6's, including insurance.

Since the counts are different for the two systems, I ran through a single deck with 2 eights removed (neutral in both counts). I did 5 sets of 10 cards and compared the two counts. In some cases, the counts were the same. In most they were different. Some examples were for HiLo 5,(5)2,2,3,(4). The same sets for Hi-Opt II were 11,(8),(2),7,7,(7). Obviously, this was a very small sample size, but it does show the large differences that can occur between the two counts.

This brings about a couple of questions. First, should I use these same plays for my "Illustrious 18" or are there different ones for my system. Second, should I bet my max spread at a true of +8 instead of +5 to correspond to the top index for this group of plays?

Thanks,

Jarhead

the indices vary with the count you're using.

I believe the indices Don S. uses in BJA3 are
for the 1-level Hi/Lo count, while Hi-OptII is
a 2-level count. So use the same plays, but
with the Hi-OptII indices for those plays.

As for max betting, you'll have to run a CVCX
sim for Hi-OptII, or use the Hi-OptII book for
your guide.

BJinNJ

Thanks! I looked back at the "book" on the HI-Opt II. Dr. Humble shows a max bet at +4. I didn't know if it was coincidence that Don Schlesinger uses +5 and the top index for the illustrious 18 is also +5.

True Counts based on Hi-Lo are generally 1/2 of what they are with Hi-Opt II.

Your change in advantage per T.C. with Hi-Lo is approx. +/- .50 %
Your change in advantage per T.C. with Hi-Opt II is approx. +/- .25 %

As such, a Hi-Lo True Count of +5 has approx. the same advantage as a Hi-Opt II True Count of +10

Bare in mind that when your Braun/Humble mimeographed pamphlet was produced was more than three decades ago.

The game has changed. I suggest that you get S.B.A. or other software to generate optimal betting ramps and a matrix of correct Basic Strategy Departure indices.

Do not lose sight that double deck and shoe games are hardly mentioned.

With Hi-Opt II each True Count is equal to about +/- .25% [without consideration of side-counted Aces]

If you are playing a typical shoe game at +4 your e.v. will be about +.60 to .70

Placing your MAX bet with such a modest advantage is reckless and will create a ruinous "Risk-of-Ruin" [pun intended]

The True Count MAX bet is dependent on several factors; but if the game is good and your bankroll is large you may want to be putting out Max bets at a Hi-Opt II True Count of at least +8 and more conservatively at +12.

If you play BJ perfectly but are under capitalized or are putting out MAX bets prematurely you are going to Dance With The Devil.

The chosen plays correspond to those plays that are the most important, which is to say that they are hands that come up frequently AND the deviations do not require a BIG True Count that you would not see too frequently.

The Basic Strategy Departure Indices for Soft Double Downs and Pair Splits are not very important at all.

Any index that is a negative number is not that valuable simply because you will be betting minimally when the playing decision is made. There are negative True Count plays included because they are hands like 12 and 13 that appear very often.

If an index is very large, (e.g. OVER +5 Hi-Lo) its occurrence is not frequent enough for it to be important.

Late Surrender Indices are actually quite important because a Card Counter's surrendering of hands when he has MAX bets out significantly reduces the Risk of Ruin. The basic Strategy player benefits less by using only the "Fab Four"

The most important index play - by far - is always Insurance.

Since only 4's and 5's count as +2, I don't believe that a particular count in Hi-Opt II would correlate directly with half the HiLo count. Actually, in my small test of running through a single deck several times and testing sections of 10 cards, sometimes they were the same. Sometimes the count was in different directions (positive for one and negative for the other). Sometimes the count was significantly higher for Hi-Opt II. On the forward for BJA3 that Don Schlesinger posted, it mentions optimal bet ramps. I look forward to seeing if this is for different counts as well.

Thanks for your response,

Dadof3

Shuffle well.

Count down 26 random cards - by placing the 26 cards face up so that you can easily and accurately record the True Counts by computing both the Hi-Lo T.C. and the Hi Opt II T.C.

Shuffle well.

Repeat as above 20 times (at least).

This will take you less than 30 minutes.

Take the average T.C. of the two (2) lists of True Counts.

There will be very close to a 2-1 differential.

Please post the results here.

The best way to compare the magnitude of what one system's running count should be with respect to another's, when they both see the same cards, is to square the 13 tags of one system (count the tens four times), do the same for the other, form the ratio of the two, and then take the square root.

If you do this for Hi-Opt II, the sum of the squares is 28. For Hi-Lo, it is 10. 28/10 is 2.8. Square root is 1.67. So, for any given set of cards seen by the two counts, Hi-Opt II's RC should be about one and two-thirds that of Hi-Lo.

Hope this helps.

Don

Don,

Thanks for your response. If I take the max bet of +5 that you use in Blackjack Attack and multiply it by 1.67, I get 8.35. That correlates well with the top index for the Illustrious 18 for Hi-Opt II of +8. Should I therefore use a max bet at +8 instead of +5 with this count system?

Thanks again,

Dadof3

"Thanks for your response. If I take the max bet of +5 that you use in Blackjack Attack and multiply it by 1.67, I get 8.35. That correlates well with the top index for the Illustrious 18 for Hi-Opt II of +8. Should I therefore use a max bet at +8 instead of +5 with this count system?"

Seems correct, but I would definitely get software, because different approaches, rules, number of decks, spreads, etc., call for max bets at different levels. For some, I suspect that the +8 would be lower.

Don