KISS: Zen vs. Omega II w/ Ace 1 Deck

Can anyone explain why the Zen out-performs Omega II with Ace side count in 1 deck simulations. I used Statistical Blackjack Analyzer and ran Billion round simulations with the same rules and non-risk averse index numbers generated for each system. Zen seems to do slightly better, even with a 1 to 5 spread.

My guess is that Omega II doesn't see enough aces to increase it's betting correlation to that of Zen's with only half of the cards dealt. The rules are 1 deck, H17, DOA, DAS, 3 rounds to 3 players/ 50% penetration, deck estimated exactly and round for index number. Uston APC did well and with side count was best.

Maybe Omega II with side count would do better compared to Zen in 2 decks where 60% or more cards were dealt?? Just goes to show that sometimes less is better... Other interesting results were 1/4 deck estimate did better than exact estimate with Zen and 80 index numbers offered very little improvement.

Looks like a weird anomaly - the BJ income calculator at bjstats.com shows the same thing - AOII slightly outperforms UBZII at SD w/ 50% pen, but with any deeper shuffle points, no contest, AOII wins big time. Same rules for DD - AOII wins.

If I had to speculate as to "why", both systems are very powerful for correct bet sizing (assuming ace side count w/ AOII), while AOII has a higher playing efficiency, which really starts to take over deeper in the deck, where more extreme counts occur and strategy variations become important. The difference at 50% pen looks minimal, and could be due to several factors - maybe for a given bankroll and bet spread, rounding to optimal bets introduces less error for UBZII, so your "in-between" bets are slightly more accurate? Sounds like Norm's territory.

If you are using these results to choose between the two - plan on ignoring any 50% SD games anyway! I'm not sure where you'll find an abundance of DAS, but it looks like the same results apply to standard H17 DOA games.

chem nerd

I actually used Zen not UBZII but I guess there's not much difference.

Why ignore single deck games? Too much heat? I don't play often but when I do I find that as long as I don't bet too outrageously the pit seems to leave me alone. I'm not a high roller so maybe they don't feel as threatened with top bets less than $100. Some casinos would rather deal me seconds or shuffle up than ask me to leave, which the latter has never happened. If I think I'm getting on somebody's nerves I'll leave very soon. Also if the dealer starts shuffling up on you you may as well call it quits- unless you want to trick them into shuffling away all negative counts, but I don't think this is a good idea.

I actually used Zen not UBZII but I guess there's not much difference.

My fault - but yes, very similar results, looks like the difference at 50% is mere pennies, and AOII is much better at any deeper pen.

Why ignore single deck games?

Good lord, I'm the last person who would ever advocate this! I meant if you find an otherwise good single deck game with lousy pen (i.e., 50%) walk away - assuming you are near other SD games, search for better pen, because it is absolutely worth it. So, I would personally compare systems for the game conditions I was most likely to play - SD H17, 60-75% or better pen, and in this range, AOII is superior.

By the way, isn't the original Zen true-counted, as well as level 2? If so, the ace side count is the only difference going to AOII, which I see as adding very minimal difficulty for single deck - I know I may not be in the majority on that point, however. :)

chem nerd

You're right, Omega II with Ace side count does win more with penetration beyond 50% in single deck. Probably because, as you mentioned, "where more extreme counts occur and strategy variations become important." But I'm not sure about keeping track of aces seperately. I just don't see myself calculating with 20 cards played and one ace seen that I am half an ace poor, then subtracting one from the running count before multiplying by 5/3 to get the true count and make my bet all within a second or two. Then I have to remember what the running count was before I did all that to continue on accurately. I'm not saying that you need to track half aces but nonetheless it's too much for me.

My Conclusion: Rather than learn a "more powerful" system it is better to seek out more advantageous playing conditions. Better rules, deeper penetration, fewer players (generally speaking), and a good act with a larger bet spread will increase odds much greater than learning a few more index numbers or swithing systems.

Thanks for your help.