Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: AsZehn: KO vs Red 7

  1. #21
    John Auston
    Guest

    John Auston: Re: BJRM 2002

    > However,
    > for K-O, it says BOTH K-O preferred AN I18
    > and Fab4. What does that mean??

    Off the top of my head, I think I remember that KO Preferred is a technique whereby you do not use an individual and unique RC for each index you use, but rather you group the indices into one of 3 (I think) categories, and use the same single index value for each member of the group.

    So, I used the Perferred indices, and assigned one of the group's RC to each of the I18 and F4.

    "Preferred" and "I18 F4" can exist together.

  2. #22
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Preferred does not

    include ten-splittings. Besides, because of the rounded matrix issue, KO using the correct sweet-16 should be better than KO preferred.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  3. #23
    John Auston
    Guest

    John Auston: Re: Preferred does not

    > include ten-splittings. Besides, because of
    > the rounded matrix issue, KO using the
    > correct sweet-16 should be better than KO
    > preferred.

    Right. But my canned sims probably did split 10's, I just assigned them to one of the Preferred Groups (probably pivot).

    John

  4. #24
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Preferred does not

    > Right. But my canned sims probably did split
    > 10's, I just assigned them to one of the
    > Preferred Groups (probably pivot).

    Ok. but then we agree that those "Preferred I18" are inferior to the "Correct I18". For example, correct split 10's are two points over the pivot.
    On the other hand, UBZII was calculated using the "Correct I18". The conclusion is that we are not comparing apples to apples and that somehow explains why BJRM doesn't show KO as a winner in Wonging mode.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo


  5. #25
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Comparison methodologies


    Choosing the number and value of indexes obviously affects results. In creating the CVCX canned sims, I chose to use the indexes in the respective books. This is clearly not a fair comparison of the base tag values. But, it is the way the vast majority of people play. If we wish to compare KO and UBZII, we need to decide first are we comparing the power of the tag values ? or the entire strategies as presented in the respective books. One of the KO indexes isn?t even the correct sign. But it is still correct in my mind given the aim of KO because it is easier to remember and has only a small impact on results. UBZII also makes compromises. I chose to compare strategies ? not tag values. Just my choice, not right or wrong. Of course the user has the ability to run his/her own sims.



  6. #26
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Comparison methodologies

    > I chose to compare
    > strategies ? not tag values. Just my choice,
    > not right or wrong. Of course the user has
    > the ability to run his/her own sims.

    Personally, I don't choose either, as fair comparisons are impossible that way.

    Tag values are a PART of an overall approach for a count system. Clearly, other factors come into play. But, it makes little sense to say that since the author suggests we do the following, this is now how we ought to "consider" such and such a count system. If Carlson gives us 75 indices and Fuchs gives us 16, does that mean that when doing side-by-sides, this is how we decide which system is "better"?

    For example, who could possibly care what Lance Humble suggested, over 25 years ago, for Hi Opt II? He didn't have at his disposal the tools that we do today. Ditto for Revere, Uston, etc.

    So, we take their tag values, and then we use today's capabilities to build an approach that optimizes the value of the tags. And then, we compare -- apples-to-apples.

    You can't take a vote and ask people how they play and then decide that this is the "power" of a system. Because, you'll get 50 differing votes, so what good is it? And, frankly, as well-intentioned as the authors of the systems themselves might have been in their books or Web sites, etc., who really cares what they think? If you don't standardize your report and comparisons, what's the point?

    Don

  7. #27
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Comparison methodologies

    But are you comparing strategies or tag values? When I think of AOII, I think of a huge number of indexes because that's what the book talks about and that's how most people play it. When I think of KO Preferred, I think of three groups of indexes because that's how it's played. Either could be played differently; but then they wouldn't be AOII and KO. AOII and Canfield Master are two separate strategies in my way of thinking. Even though they have the same tags. Just as HiLo and HiLo Lite are two separate strategies and should be examined separately.

  8. #28
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Comparison methodologies

    > But are you comparing strategies or tag
    > values?

    I told you -- neither, specifically.

    > When I think of AOII, I think of a
    > huge number of indexes because that's what
    > the book talks about and that's how most
    > people play it.

    How could you possibly know that? It might be true, but people might use the I18 for simplicity.

    I use the RPC with about 175 indices. Do you think everyone who uses Halves or Zen or the RPC does that? Why can't they use those counts and the I18? Or Catch 22? Or 42 indices, if they so choose? Who cares what's in the book?

    Wong's hi-lo gives hundreds of indices. Do you suppose most hi-lo players use them, as prescribed by Wong?

    > When I think of KO
    > Preferred, I think of three groups of
    > indexes because that's how it's played.
    > Either could be played differently; but then
    > they wouldn't be AOII and KO.

    Of course they would. The books' indices are just one of dozens of sets of recommendations the authors could have supplied. They don't define the count in any way at all.

    You know that I have the greatest respect in the world for you, Norm, but the above simply doesn't make much sense to me at all.

    Don


  9. #29
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Comparison methodologies

    > How could you possibly know that?

    I don't know. So in most cases, CVCX canned sims give both I18 & full indexes as published by the author. To me it makes no sense to use indexes that aren't in the book since very few, if any, people will be using the exact indexes that you use in the sims. The problem that I've always had with sims is that people generally sim the perfect case and then can't understand why their results don't match. I'd much rather calculate a betting ramp that is based on what the user is likely to be using, instead of simming a better-than-text-book situation. I also insist on providing different results for Hi-Lo and Hi-Lo Lite. Or for that matter UBZII Single-deck tables and UBZII Composite tables at single deck.

    In any case, I supplied a built-in simulator in CVCX so they could sim the indexes they actually use.

  10. #30
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Comparison methodologies

    > Choosing the number and value of indexes
    > obviously affects results. In creating the
    > CVCX canned sims, I chose to use the indexes
    > in the respective books. This is clearly not
    > a fair comparison of the base tag values.
    > But, it is the way the vast majority of
    > people play. If we wish to compare KO and
    > UBZII, we need to decide first are we
    > comparing the power of the tag values ? or
    > the entire strategies as presented in the
    > respective books. One of the KO indexes
    > isn?t even the correct sign. But it is still
    > correct in my mind given the aim of KO
    > because it is easier to remember and has
    > only a small impact on results. UBZII also
    > makes compromises. I chose to compare
    > strategies ? not tag values. Just my choice,
    > not right or wrong. Of course the user has
    > the ability to run his/her own sims.

    I don't agree on going by the books. I've found too many errors so I don't trust them. This is so even if I decided to choose only a small subset (C22).
    The best thing to do is to generate your own indices.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.