Indexes are generated according to a specified method of TC calculation. If you use a different method, you don't get the full benefit. Albeit the difference is slight.
> Why would index numbers need to change when the only
> difference is we're using fractions of a whole deck to
> "fine tune" the TC? I understand if we're
> dividing whole decks by or 4,but this is not the case.
> thanks,
> Brick
I am aware if the index numbers were generated using flooring and the TC's are rounded the precision will be off,but what if the index numbers were generated using rounding also? Does it still matter if we divide by fractions of a whole deck?
thanks,
Brick
None of this matters much. But, if you calculate TC one way when you create indexes and calculate another way when you use them, precision can be reduced. The point of any sim, including an index generation sim, is to duplicate as much as possible the actual way a person plays.
> I am aware if the index numbers were generated using
> flooring and the TC's are rounded the precision will
> be off,but what if the index numbers were generated
> using rounding also? Does it still matter if we divide
> by fractions of a whole deck?
> thanks,
> Brick
You can always concoct examples that show that, under certain contrived circumstances, one approach is much better than the other. In fact, it isn't.
In your examples, you would have had your max bet out no matter which resolution you used, and it would have made little or no difference.
Quarter-deck resolution in the shoe game is, more or less, overkill and quite useless. Half-deck might slightly outperform full-deck. Norm and I did some studies on this recently. I think half-deck won 1-2% more, tops.
Don
> In your examples, you would have had your max bet out
> no matter which resolution you used, and it would have
> made little or no difference.
Not true. I am learning MIT style Hi-Lo. The way those guys calculate the bet is described below:
Bet = (TC-1)* unit. They also round (not floor) the TC to the nearest 1/2 unit.
The bet schedule is as follows:
TC <= 1.5 bet 1/2 unit
TC = 2 bet 1 unit
TC = 2.5 bet 1.5 units
TC = 3 bet 2 units
etc.....
Using this strategy would require a TC of +7 to place a maximum bet. Clearly, this increased accuracy would mean wagering different amounts at a TC of +5, +5.7, and +6.7.
> Quarter-deck resolution in the shoe game is, more or
> less, overkill and quite useless. Half-deck might
> slightly outperform full-deck. Norm and I did some
> studies on this recently. I think half-deck won 1-2%
> more, tops.
Frankly, I'm surprised 1/4 deck estimation does not generate more SCORE then 1/2 deck. In the second half of the shoe it might a difference, especially in the last 1/3 of the shoe as my example demonstrates. Now what if the penetration was slightly deeper and the RC was even higher then +10?
MJ
> Not true. I am learning MIT style Hi-Lo.
Be my guest. In case you don't know, they didn't invent Hi-Lo. :-)
> The way those
> guys calculate the bet is described below:
> Bet = (TC-1)* unit. They also round (not floor) the TC
> to the nearest 1/2 unit.
To each his own.
> The bet schedule is as follows:
> TC TC = 2 bet 1 unit
> TC = 2.5 bet 1.5 units
> TC = 3 bet 2 units
> etc.....
There is an advantage to calculating TC to a half-point, to gain a better betting ramp.
> Using this strategy would require a TC of +7 to place
> a maximum bet. Clearly, this increased accuracy would
> mean wagering different amounts at a TC of +5, +5.7,
> and +6.7.
It is probably a bad mistake to wait until +7, using Hi-Lo, to place a max bet. Regardless of resolution, you are dividing by whole decks. In a 6-deck shoe game, TCs of +7 or higher occur, for 4.5/6, 0.84% of the time. So, what's the point?? You say you're using a certain spread, but you actually attain the max bet once every 119 hands? Who's kidding whom??
> Frankly, I'm surprised 1/4 deck estimation does not
> generate more SCORE than 1/2 deck.
Again, you seem to equate "I'm surprised" with "you must be wrong." I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Run the sims yourself. Then, report back.
> In the second half
> of the shoe it might a difference, especially in the
> last 1/3 of the shoe as my example demonstrates. Now
> what if the penetration was slightly deeper and the RC
> was even higher than +10?
You can formulate all the "what ifs" you like. I'm telling you that it doesn't matter. But, don't take my word for it.
Don
Just looked at a few optimal bet ramps. In a 4.5/6 game, max bet should be placed at +4. In 5/6, at +5. Waiting for +7 is ridiculous.
Don
I stated that the MIT Team uses rounding for the TC. I would venture to say that the optimal bet ramps you posted are for FLOORING the TC. Obviously, with flooring you have a greater advantage per each unit of TC as compared to rounding. That is why your ramp mandates placing a max bet at a lower TC.
Now, do you have any optimal bet ramps for when you ROUND the TC? If so, please go ahead and post it. Otherwise, the comparison you are trying to make is invalid. Also, was the statistic you sighted of a TC frequency of +7 occuring 1 in 119 hands for a floored or rounded TC? If it assumes flooring, do you know how often a TC of +7 would occur when using rounding? Thanks Don!
MJ
> Just looked at a few optimal bet ramps. In a 4.5/6
> game, max bet should be placed at +4. In 5/6, at +5.
> Waiting for +7 is ridiculous.
> Don
> I stated that the MIT Team uses rounding for the TC. I
> would venture to say that the optimal bet ramps you
> posted are for FLOORING the TC. Obviously, with
> flooring you have a greater advantage per each unit of
> TC as compared to rounding. That is why your ramp
> mandates placing a max bet at a lower TC.
The difference between flooring and rounding is one-half of a true point. Placing the max bet for the interval +6.5 to +7.4999), instead of +7 to +7.9999, is almost just as bad, no?
> Now, do you have any optimal bet ramps for when you
> ROUND the TC?
Sure. Shift everything by one-half TC.
> If so, please go ahead and post it.
Use CVCX.
> Otherwise, the comparison you are trying to make is
> invalid.
It's perfectly valid; it just isn't perfectly accurate, because you're rounding. All the principles remain the same. ALL of them.
> Also, was the statistic you sighted of a TC
> frequency of +7 occurring 1 in 119 hands for a floored
> or rounded TC?
Floored.
> If it assumes flooring, do you know how
> often a TC of +7 would occur when using rounding?
> Thanks Don!
Yes, I'd guess a whopping 0.5% more! :-)
Don
> Just looked at a few optimal bet ramps. In a 4.5/6
> game, max bet should be placed at +4. In 5/6, at +5.
> Waiting for +7 is ridiculous.
> Don
I assume the MIT team defined a unit as being the smallest advantage bet.The bet for negative situations would just be a fraction of this.
Otherwise the bet ramp would indeed be ridiculous and I don't see how they could have made all their money like that.
Francis Salmon
> I assume the MIT team defined a unit as being the
> smallest advantage bet.The bet for negative situations
> would just be a fraction of this.
That is why they bet 1 unit at TC = +2 (.5% advantage) and 1/2 unit when the TC <= 1.5 (do not have advantage). These figures are for rounding and not flooring.
MJ
> It is probably a bad mistake to wait until +7, using
> Hi-Lo, to place a max bet. Regardless of resolution,
> you are dividing by whole decks.
If resolution is 1/4 deck, how do you figure I am dividing by
"whole" decks?
MJ
> If resolution is 1/4 deck, how do you figure I am
> dividing by
> "whole" decks?
Honestly, it's not your fault, but I just don't have the patience to answer this again, after having discussed and answered this point at least 100 times.
When you have one deck remaining, do you divide by 1 or by 4?
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks