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.
