Blackjack Counting Low Cards Is A 100% Complete Waste, Almost!

AceMT rivals Hi-Lo, and similarly, X-Count rivals Hi-Opt I. As can be seen below, AceMT's BC+PE+IC attains 99.1% of Hi-Lo's BC+PE+IC, and X-Count attains 99.6% of Hi-Opt I's BC+PE+IC, all by counting the high cards alone.

The Inescapable Conclusion: Counting the low cards is almost a 100% complete waste, almost!

 

Hi! Here's a more casual take:

It looks like AceMT and X-Count are pretty efficient when compared to Hi-Lo and Hi-Opt I.

• AceMT gets about 99.1% of Hi-Lo’s performance, just by focusing on high cards. That’s pretty impressive considering Hi-Lo is a more well-rounded system.
• X-Count does almost as well, hitting 99.6% of Hi-Opt I’s performance, again, just counting high cards.

So, these systems show that you don’t always need the most complex system to get close to the performance of the more advanced ones. Maybe AceMT and X-Count are simpler but still work well because they focus on the key stuff—high cards—which can still give you a solid edge.

What do you think? Does the simplicity of these systems make them more appealing to use, or are there trade-offs you’re concerned about?

 

* * * * *
The Inescapable Conclusion: Counting the low cards is a 100% complete waste, almost![/QUOTE]

Not true? See Foret Lanyang X-Count vs. Thorp Ten-Count and Ace Unbalanced vs. Ace Balanced, and pick a choice.