Comments
new221b,
A few comments about your experiment:
1. And there is no table programed for what to do with soft totals below ten. I figure that it should hurt high-low and omega somewhat the same, and probably help knock-out.
Since a soft total is a total in which an ace counts as 11, soft totals below 10 don't exist.
2. All runs used a 1-4 bet spread and high-low and omega used the true count to make the bets.
High-Low bets 4 units when the true count is 8 or greater, 2 units when the true count is 4 or more, and 1 unit otherwise.
Omega used the same strategy with an ace side count as explained in the book.
This is the optimal strategy for High-Low but probably not Omega-II.
Knock-Out bets 4 units when the count is 8 or greater, and 2 units when the count is 3 or greater, and 1 unit otherwise.
Your betting strategy is suboptimal for both Omega II and KO. Your results would probably be more reasonable if you hit the max bet for each of these two systems at 4, rather than 8. Note that Carlson wrote BJFB before the theory of optimal betting was established, so the betting strategies he advocates in the book are outdated.
3. I started 7 running programs of each strategy with 200 units and let them run for about 20,000 hands.
Nowadays, simulations typically run to the hundreds of millions if not billions of hands. Of course, you also mentioned that the program takes 0.2 seconds per hand, so each billion hand sim will take... let's see now... a shade over 6 years, 4 months. How patient are you? ;-)
4. You mention using the count (true or running, depending on the system) for betting purposes, but I see no mention of using the count for playing deviations. If you failed to include that in your analysis, you've seriously shortchanged both KO and Omega II.
Just my fiftieth of a silver!
Dog Hand
P.S. May I play in your casino? ;-)