Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 27 to 35 of 35

Thread: AsZehn: KO vs Red 7

  1. #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.

  2. #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


  3. #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.

  4. #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

  5. #31
    AsZehn
    Guest

    AsZehn: Re: Comparison methodologies

    Appreciate all of your efforts on this matter. The KO book only lists 13 of the C22 with the full matrix. If it isn't too much trouble, could you furnish me with your C22 for 6 & 8 deck.

    Using an IRC of -24 for 6 decks, I believe you stated the optimal wong in point would be -2 what would it be for 8 decks. Again thanks for all of the analysis.

    AZ

    > 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

  6. #32
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Actually, that's my point

    > 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).

    Most people play with those errors. I wanted to supply results that matched their play.

  7. #33
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Actually, that's my point

    > Most people play with those errors. I wanted
    > to supply results that matched their play.

    You wouldn't prefer to supply the correct values so as to educate at the same time that you supply genial software? If you know there are errors, why help people to practice with the wrong values? How difficult is it to supply the correct ones?

    Don

  8. #34
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Actually, that's my point

    While that's coming, I still think the majority of people will play with the indexes in the books. And even those that don't will use different numbers of indexes or generate indexes with different assumptions.

  9. #35
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Comparison methodologies

    > Appreciate all of your efforts on this
    > matter. The KO book only lists 13 of the C22
    > with the full matrix. If it isn't too much
    > trouble, could you furnish me with your C22
    > for 6 & 8 deck.

    My book lists 18 plays for the KO-preferred. If I recall correctly you need to add TTv5, TTv6, A8v6, A8v5.
    The C22 used for this sim were calculated using SBA. They apply only for the rules used in the sim.

    IRC = -24

     Ins =  -1 
    16vT = -9
    15vT = 0
    16v9 = 5
    12v6 = -23
    12v5 = -24
    12v4 = -9
    12v3 = -4
    12v2 = -1
    13v3 = -24
    13v2 = -14
    11vA = -6
    10vA = -1
    10vT = -1
    9v7 = 0
    9v2 = -6
    8v6 = -4
    8v5 = 0
    A8v6 = -7
    A8v5 = -5
    TTv6 = 2
    TTv5 = 2


    If your IRC is -20 then add 4 to every index.

    > Using an IRC of -24 for 6 decks, I believe
    > you stated the optimal wong in point would
    > be -2 what would it be for 8 decks. Again
    > thanks for all of the analysis.

    No, I said that the optimal wonging point is -6. I haven't done the analysis for 8D so I can't tell what the optimal point is. Besides, it's rule-dependent.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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.