Undecided? Who knows what...

Some of you would perhaps like to know that your sayings have been persuasive enough to convince me to look into a strategy other than the Hi-Opt I for single deck blackjack games.

For now I would still only be interested in level one counts, but do not know specifically which alternate system to take up? My goal may be somewhat unrealistic in that I would like to eventually be able to have around a 90% PE with a near perfect BC but it remains my ambition
none the less. Which system would later allow me to progress to this point of efficiency without undue difficulties? Will they then need to be forgotten or modified or just refined and added to, to increase their power?

Presently I have literature on the following strategies:

The Hi-Low in "Professional Blackjack",
The K-O found in "Knock Out Blackjack" and
The Canfield Expert exposited in my copy of "Your Way to Riches",

all along with the Hi-Opt I in "The World's Greatest Blackjack Book", which you have succeeded in talking me out of.

Are there any other works and strategies I should consider which would better suit my purposes, maybe the Red-Seven of Arnold Snyder, or something I haven't yet heard of?

In your honest opinion what do recommend and what is the reason for this decision?

P.S. I understand that a few of you have been pushing the High-Low strategy at me, but please realize I have very strong reservations about using the High-Low because I simply see it as a weak system in relation to others that have been developed more recently. I mean no offense to anyone who plays it and especially poor Mr. Dubner.

...perform very close to each other, usually hundredths of % in advantage. This is because all count systems are based on the same perfect linear system.
Obsessing about the issue too much will cost you more money than making the "right" decision, which is almost a philosophical question. Just learn a system and get gambling.

Hi Opt 1 is a strong and easy system. Rather than changing why not try side counting aces if it is not part of your game. Most people on these pages do the Hi lo because they want a system that is easy and they wong. I do not play the same way as these people because I am a throw back player. I use the Uston APC. I do not have problems with it but I practice a lot. John is right the best thing to do is master your systm and crush the house. I feel my system would perform better than high lo illustrious 18 play. But I play a lot differently than the high lo players. They probably acheive the same efficiency or better by wonging in and out.

but what's wrong with Hi-Opt I. As long as you're using an ace side-count, it would seem a pretty effective way to tackle a SD. It has a better PE than Hi Lo.

You seem to be someone who likes the difficult stuff and is willing to try to learn it, for a fractional increase in PE. The BRH systems will certainly suit you.

Neko

Stick with the Hi-Opt I system. It's one of the best single/double deck, level 1 systems out there. If you want to improve it's PE to nearer 90% and also improve the BC to near perfect you need to use the Griffin Multiparameter approach which uses the same (Hi-Opt I) count.

If you really want to get into this you need to buy a copy of a book called "Winning At Casino Gaming" by Rouge et Noir**. In the appendix by Peter Griffin he fully describes this system.

**This book is over 25 years old, so you'll have to check out some second hand book dealers on the net. If any other Hi-Opt I player's are reading this, this book is a good addition to WGBJB.

he will teach you side counts with ace as +1 and -1 as well as side counts of 8 and 9. Check out his site. His systems range from very simple to fairly complex. I do not think you can do much better.

Bert

...PE, is using the Gordon count (2-5 = +1, T = -1), with individual sidecounts of A,6,7,8,9 incorporated. If you are of the skill level of Peter Griffin or T-hopper than this will be cake, and you may want to think about adding a Ten Count for insurance too. Seriously though, this approach wouldn't be reasonable anyway because you said you wanted to start off with just the base count and eventually upgrade; the Gordon count is just too weak to use by its lonesome.

As for Hi-Opt I, it would provide a better INITIAL starting point, but would max out at .891 PE (compared to .922 of Gordon MP). Hi-Opt I by itself, or with an Ace sidecount, is limited, even in single deck. You could do better with a simple level two system, such as 2-6 = +1, 7 = +.5, T = -1, A = -.5, which has BC and PE of around 96.5% & 61.5%, respectively. This system would require no sidecount, and no true count conversion for betting purposes. Now some will say they find it more difficult to count two different values than to keep a sidecount. Fair enough, for those I propose a simplified version, which basically would be a combination of Snyder's Red Sevens and Renzy's Black Aces counts. This hybrid would have a BC and PE of around 94.5% & 58.5%, respectively, and would perform nearly as well as Hi-Opt I w/ Ace sidecount at a fraction of the difficulty, because it is a level 1 single-parameter system, again, with no need to true count for betting purposes.

With that said, If you are intent on sidecounting, there are better ways of going about it than the standard Hi-Opt method. See my post at Cardcounter.com, archived in the Best Posts section, entitled "21st Century Sidecounting" for more info. Another point I'll mention briefly is the use of "blocked" sidecounts, rather than individual ones. Ease of use can be cut substantially, with only marginal decreases in accuracy. See Griffin's TOB for more details.

Yes, I have read this statement made by Dr. Griffin in "The Theory of Blackjack" and wish to proceed with the Hi-Opt I multiparameter system
but I cannot find the necessary study materials. But anyway I did read your post on Cardcounter.com on 21st century Sidecounting and found it very intriguing, while provoking my thoughts on other similar
possibilities.

You seem to be very knowledgeable about the game and I was hoping you could provide me with somemore answers. I was advised by another couple of people to look into the Brh strategies, as they may be more better suited for my playing goals. What would you have to say about this? I have already done some research in to the subject, and have found they are quite pricey, and of limited availibility. Are they
worth the expense or should I stick to what I have? You should probably know that I am very intent to become a good player and am willing to put in the time and effort as well as some extra money if it will pay me back with the expected results(ROI).

Thank you for all of your information it was very helpful.

PS: By the way who is T-hopper and where is his website, for he sounds like quite a character. Oh, and that post on boundaries and endplay by alienated, Ted did you say, that also looked very interesting. Thanks!

Does anybody know how those more sophisticated counting systems work?
Some of the more recently developed ones have things such as an unbalanced running count with a true count conversion and variable pivot points, or an ace-reckoned strategy along with a simultaneous sidecount, and other complexities of the like. What does all of this mean? Is it more effective than the older (sorry, but somewhat outmoded) traditional systems?