The Hi-Opt I System

Learn the Hi-Opt I counting system — an ace-neutral approach with higher playing efficiency for strategy deviations.

Introduction

Hi-Opt I (Highly Optimized Type I) takes a different philosophical approach from Hi-Lo. Instead of tracking everything in one count, it separates the Ace from the main count, creating a purer measure of playing advantage. The tradeoff: you need a separate ace side count for betting decisions.

This system was developed by Lance Humble and Carl Cooper and is the first step into intermediate-level counting.

Card Values

CardHi-Opt I ValueHi-Lo ValueDifference
20+1Changed
3+1+1Same
4+1+1Same
5+1+1Same
6+1+1Same
700Same
800Same
900Same
10-1-1Same
J-1-1Same
Q-1-1Same
K-1-1Same
A0-1Changed

Two cards change: 2 becomes neutral (was +1) and Ace becomes neutral (was -1). Only 3-6 are positive, only 10-K are negative.

Why Remove Aces and 2s?

Aces are unique in blackjack. They affect betting advantage (more Aces = more blackjacks = bigger payouts) and playing advantage differently. By keeping Aces out of the main count, the count becomes a better indicator of when to deviate from basic strategy (hit when you’d normally stand, double when you’d normally hit, etc.).

2s have minimal impact on playing decisions. Removing them makes the count slightly leaner without losing much information.

The result: Hi-Opt I has a playing efficiency of 0.61 compared to Hi-Lo’s 0.51. That means the count more accurately tells you when to make non-standard plays.

The Ace Side Count

Since Aces aren’t in the main count, you track them separately:

  1. Know the expected Aces. In a 6-deck shoe, there are 24 Aces total.
  2. Track Aces seen. Keep a simple mental tally of Aces dealt.
  3. Compare to expected. After 3 decks are dealt, you’d expect 12 Aces. If you’ve only seen 8, the remaining shoe is Ace-rich (favorable for betting). If you’ve seen 16, it’s Ace-poor.

Simplified rule: If fewer Aces than expected have appeared, increase your bet. If more, decrease it.

This is extra mental work, but it’s a simpler tally than the main count — you’re just counting from 0 upward each time you see an Ace.

Worked Example

Count these 10 cards using Hi-Opt I (compare with Hi-Lo):

2♣, A♠, 5♦, K♥, 3♠, 7♦, 10♣, 4♥, 9♠, 6♣

CardHi-Opt IRunning TotalHi-LoRunning Total
2♣00+1+1
A♠00-10
5♦+1+1+1+1
K♥-10-10
3♠+1+1+1+1
7♦0+10+1
10♣-10-10
4♥+1+1+1+1
9♠0+10+1
6♣+1+2+1+2

In this sequence, both systems give +2. But notice: the 2 and Ace cancelled each other in Hi-Lo (+1 + -1 = 0), while in Hi-Opt I they were both 0. The difference shows up more in sequences with unequal numbers of 2s and Aces.

Side count: 1 Ace seen out of 10 cards from a single deck. Expected at this point: ~0.77 Aces. Slightly more than expected — roughly neutral for betting.

Practice Exercises

Sequence 1: A♥, 2♠, 3♦, 10♣, A♦

Answer

Hi-Opt I: (0) + (0) + (+1) + (-1) + (0) = 0 (Aces seen: 2)

Hi-Lo: (-1) + (+1) + (+1) + (-1) + (-1) = -1

Sequence 2: 5♣, 6♥, J♦, Q♠, 2♣, 7♦, A♠, 4♦

Answer

Hi-Opt I: (+1) + (+1) + (-1) + (-1) + (0) + (0) + (0) + (+1) = +1 (Aces seen: 1)

Hi-Lo: (+1) + (+1) + (-1) + (-1) + (+1) + (0) + (-1) + (+1) = +1

When to Use Hi-Opt I

Choose Hi-Opt I if:

  • You want more accurate playing deviations (index plays)
  • You can comfortably maintain two mental tallies simultaneously
  • You’ve mastered Hi-Lo and want a step up in precision

Stick with Hi-Lo if:

  • Managing two counts feels overwhelming
  • You primarily use the count for bet sizing (Hi-Lo is simpler and nearly as good for betting)
  • You’re still building speed and accuracy

Key Takeaways

  • Hi-Opt I makes 2s and Aces neutral, counted separately
  • Playing efficiency (0.61) is significantly higher than Hi-Lo (0.51)
  • Requires a separate ace side count for betting decisions
  • Best for players who want better strategy deviation accuracy
  • The system is balanced — a full deck sums to 0
  • Master Hi-Lo first, then transition to Hi-Opt I

Next Steps

For even higher precision, explore Omega II — a multi-level system with the highest betting correlation. Or return to the counting systems comparison.