I re-read the chapters on SCORE in BJA last night, and maybe I am blind (most certainly in some matters) but I could not tell from what was written if the ace neutral counts (Hi-OPT I, II most notably) used ace side counts in the simulations that were run.
I want the extra bang that Hi-OPT II gives in these tables, I'll be switching from Halves, but I want exactly the system that was used in the simulation, nothing less...
Thanks
'HO2 EXTRA BANG' without employing a simultaneus 3-card secondary count (see Snyder on Ace Side Counts http://www.rge21.com/lib/sdcnt.htm ) and therfore the most practical level-2 system remains ZEN (see Snyder on The Best System http://www.rge21.com/lib/hundred.htm ) G.
The Grifter response about zen being the most practical count is ok,but ho2 with ace side will out perform all counts.
...accuracy that requires a 3-card secondary count (see also Uston on BJ 1986 for insight as to the difficulty to extract full value from Ace side-counts) - Humble's approach of estimating 1/4D relative-ace-density doesn't cut it. ZEN with a multiparameter 7s side-count would likely outperform HO2 w/sideAces. Anyone care to run the SCORE/sim? G
"but I could not tell from what was written if the ace neutral counts (Hi-OPT I, II most notably) used ace side counts in the simulations
that were run."
Yes, they did, but with only the same I18 that all the other counts used. This penalizes the counts that are strong on PE more than those that are strong on BC. I made this comment on p. 292, first paragraph.
Don
