-
Syph: Norm, could you explain...
Why Hi-Lo Lite fairs so poorly?
I only compared a few games on your impressive site, but here is what I found:
6d, Fair pen (3/4), H17 DAS LS, 1-20 spread, $20,000 br
Hi Lo Lite (all indexes): $57.00
Hi Lo (I18/F4)..........: $56.69
Hi Lo (all indexes).....: $63.80 (with 4 errors per hour)
Zen 98 (all indexes)....: $61.98
Halves (all indexes)....: $72.35
1d, Fair pen, S17, 1-3 spread, $20,000 br
Hi Lo Lite (all indexes): $127.51
Hi Lo (I18/F4)..........: $137.43 (!)
Hi Lo (all indexes).....: $161.10 (with 4 errors per hour)
Zen 98(all indexes).....: $161.81
Halves (all indexes)....: $186.90
Questions:
1)?@I`ve always assumed that rounded, composite indices lose little strength over more exact ones.
But your sims suggest otherwise, or do they?
2) Is it the "True Edge" method of bet spreads that causes the weakness?
3) Further down you mentioned that the RPC would be your count of choice. Is it true that can use all the same indices and bet spreads (described in BJA) for Hi-Lo simply by dividing by half decks?
I ask because I compared the gain per true count point and found that Hi Lo was about .52% and the RPC was about .27%
Close, but not an exact match.
Thank-you for any response.
Cheers!
Syph
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Norm, could you explain...
> 3) Further down you mentioned that the RPC
> would be your count of choice. Is it true
> that can use all the same indices and bet
> spreads (described in BJA) for Hi-Lo simply
> by dividing by half decks?
I'll jump in here: no. You can get close, but you have to understand that the RPC counts the 7, and hi-lo doesn't. So, your solution, while approximate, is far from exact. You can't expect to use precisely the same indices and for everything to be optimal.
> I ask because I compared the gain per true
> count point and found that Hi Lo was about
> .52% and the RPC was about .27%
> Close, but not an exact match.
See above. The surprise would be if you DID get an exact match!
Don
> Thank-you for any response.
> Cheers!
> Syph
-
Norm Wattenberger: Re: Norm, could you explain...
As Don took #3, I'll take the others:
> 1)I`ve always assumed that rounded,
> composite indices lose little strength over
> more exact ones.
> But your sims suggest otherwise, or do they?
At six deck (which I, and I believe Don, favor) that is true. But not at single deck where indexes are more important.
> 2) Is it the "True Edge" method of
> bet spreads that causes the weakness?
That is my theory for Zen '98 which uses a quarter deck divisor. But, I have yet to prove it.
regards,
norm
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks