Hi-Opt I is a single-level, balanced, ace-neutral count designed for slightly higher playing efficiency than Hi-Lo. Best for players who want a clean count for index plays and are willing to add an optional ace side count.
Memorize this table. Every card you see adds its tag value to the running count.
| Card | Tag Value |
|---|---|
| 2 | 0 |
| 3, 4, 5, 6 | +1 |
| 7, 8, 9 | 0 |
| 10, J, Q, K | −1 |
| A | 0 (track separately if side counting) |
Notice that 2s and aces both count as zero. That is the main structural difference from Hi-Lo, where 2s are +1 and aces are −1.
The mathematics of removal in blackjack show that 2s contribute relatively little to playing efficiency. Tagging them at 0 in Hi-Opt I makes the running count a slightly purer signal for index play decisions like 16 vs 10 or 12 vs 4.
Aces are removed from the running count for a different reason: aces help the betting decision (they boost blackjack frequency) but hurt the playing decision (extra aces mean fewer 10s for the dealer’s hole, but they do not help most stiff-hand decisions). By tagging aces 0, Hi-Opt I produces a count that is better calibrated for play. The trade-off is that you lose information about ace density, which matters for sizing your bet.
The fix is the optional ace side count: a separate tally of aces seen so far, used to adjust your bet but not your play decisions.
The two systems are close cousins. Here is when one beats the other:
| Metric | Hi-Lo | Hi-Opt I |
|---|---|---|
| Playing Efficiency | ~0.51 | ~0.61 |
| Betting Correlation | ~0.97 | ~0.88 (no ace SC) / ~0.97 (with ace SC) |
| Insurance Correlation | ~0.76 | ~0.85 |
| Memorization | Easier (one rule for 2 and A) | Slightly harder (separate buckets for 2 and A) |
| Ace side count | Not needed | Optional but recommended for serious play |
If you are not willing to maintain an ace side count, Hi-Lo gives you better betting correlation with similar accuracy on insurance. Hi-Opt I shines when you can layer the ace side count on top — you get superior playing efficiency and matching betting correlation.
The ace side count is exactly what it sounds like: a second running tally that counts only aces seen.
The simplest method: assume the deck started with 1 ace per 13 cards. If you have seen more than your share, the deck is ace-poor and you should bet slightly less. Fewer than your share, the deck is ace-rich and you should bet slightly more. Many practitioners use a rule of thumb: each ace ahead of expectation is worth roughly +1 to the count for betting only.
If you already know Hi-Lo, the transition is straightforward but requires reps to overwrite the muscle memory. If Hi-Opt I is your first count, follow the standard counting curriculum.
Practice all of this in the Blackjack 3000 trainer, where you can pick Hi-Opt I from Settings and the speed count, true count, and gauntlet drills will all score you against Hi-Opt I tag values.
Probably not, unless you have specific reasons:
For most counters playing 6-deck or 8-deck games, Hi-Lo’s simplicity and minimal mental load remain the right choice. The published expected-value gap between Hi-Lo and Hi-Opt I (with ace side count) is real but small — usually less than 0.05% in EV per hour for typical games.
Hi-Opt I has slightly higher playing efficiency than Hi-Lo because it ignores 2s and aces, leaving the count cleaner for play decisions. Betting correlation is similar to Hi-Lo, but only if you maintain an ace side count. The trade-off is more memorization and a second tally to track.
Aces are tagged 0, so the running count alone undervalues a deck heavy in aces for betting. A separate ace side count corrects for this. Many players skip the side count to keep things simple and accept a small loss in betting efficiency.
No. The Illustrious 18 indices are calibrated for Hi-Lo. Hi-Opt I has its own index numbers that differ because the tag values are different. Use a Hi-Opt I index chart from a verified source.
The name comes from its design goal — it was developed (alongside Hi-Opt II) to be optimized for playing decisions rather than betting decisions. The trade-off is exactly what you would expect: higher playing efficiency, lower betting correlation unless paired with an ace side count.
Yes. A full deck sums to 0 (four 3s, four 4s, four 5s, four 6s = +16; four 10s, four Js, four Qs, four Ks = −16). Because it is balanced, you must compute true count by dividing the running count by decks remaining, just like Hi-Lo.