Brick: playing expectation.

[Brick]

"
> Yes, but those sims are for BS. No playing
> variations.
> Look at the spread 1-1 (flat betting). Even
> without a bet variation Hi-Lo outperforms
> SF. Maybe if we used a full set of indices
> perhaps SF became better than HL but I'm not
> sure. The problem is that Insurance is
> included in the PE calculation. Insurance
> correlates better with HL than with SF."

I suspected the main reason hi-lo has an increase of ev by a mere .002% when flat betting is due to IC,however this tells very little of how significant PE is because IC is included and you only used 18 index numbers.

If the 24-25%(1-4) increase in ev from sims you ran are for only basic strategy, then this seems to provide further evidence that PE increases in significance when using a lower bet spread. Silver Fox had a huge margin gain against hi-lo after applying only 18 indices and using a 1-4 spread. This gain had to mathematically derive from somwhere,my guess is PE. An interesting note is silver fox has only a mere increase of .021 PE compared to hi-lo. I imagine a system to system comparision with more indices that has an increase of PE by .200 would be quite an eye opener.

I plan on getting some good software in the near future and study how valuble and important PE may be under certain conditions.

> Yes, but you need to eliminate insurance
> from the calculation and nobody would
> exclude such a play.

Are there any simulators on the market that will allow me to eliminate insurance from calculations? I understand nobody would exclude such a play but in order to understand how insignificant or insignicant PE really is I would like to study PE and exclude IC. I will try to post my findings in the near future.

Thanks,
Brick

[Don Schlesinger]

> Are there any simulators on the market that
> will allow me to eliminate insurance from
> calculations?

Sure. When you stipulate the index numbers you're going to use in the simulation, simply exclude insurance, like any other play.

Don

[Cacarulo]

> I suspected the main reason hi-lo has an
> increase of ev by a mere .002% when flat
> betting is due to IC,however this tells very
> little of how significant PE is because IC
> is included and you only used 18 index
> numbers.

PE as defined in TOB includes Insurance plus 70 playing variations. I used 22 indices including insurance.

> If the 24-25%(1-4) increase in ev from sims
> you ran are for only basic strategy, then
> this seems to provide further evidence that
> PE increases in significance when using a
> lower bet spread. Silver Fox had a huge
> margin gain against hi-lo after applying
> only 18 indices and using a 1-4 spread. This
> gain had to mathematically derive from
> somwhere,my guess is PE. An interesting note
> is silver fox has only a mere increase of
> .021 PE compared to hi-lo. I imagine a
> system to system comparision with more
> indices that has an increase of PE by .200
> would be quite an eye opener.

I am not saying that PE does not exist. I say that it is not a good parameter on which you can rely.

> I plan on getting some good software in the
> near future and study how valuble and
> important PE may be under certain
> conditions.

Great idea!

> Are there any simulators on the market that
> will allow me to eliminate insurance from
> calculations? I understand nobody would
> exclude such a play but in order to
> understand how insignificant or insignicant
> PE really is I would like to study PE and
> exclude IC. I will try to post my findings
> in the near future.

Any good simulator can do it (CVdata, SBA, etc.)
But here is my question: Why do you want to analyze a game without the most important play (ins)? IMO, you would be measuring something that it's not useful.
Probably, if you exclude insurance from the sims SF will be better than HL. Of course, this would only apply to lower bet spreads.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Brick]

> PE as defined in TOB includes Insurance plus
> 70 playing variations. I used 22 indices
> including insurance.

I blundered, thought you used the Ill 18. What does TOB stand for?

> I am not saying that PE does not exist. I
> say that it is not a good parameter on which
> you can rely.

Sorry,I did not mean to imply that you feel PE does not exist, but rather that under certain conditions,such as 6 deck with excellent rules and pen, or maybe double and single deck offering a generous game may have a very significant impact on PE when a unit represents big money and a low sread is used. IMHO, this could also be used as an act of cover with no cost.

> Any good simulator can do it (CVdata, SBA,
> etc.)
> But here is my question: Why do you want to
> analyze a game without the most important
> play (ins)? IMO, you would be measuring
> something that it's not useful.
> Probably, if you exclude insurance from the
> sims SF will be better than HL. Of course,
> this would only apply to lower bet spreads.

At the moment I'm more interested in the significance of exclusively PE not IC. IMHO it could be possible that the playing expection of PE outperforms IC when PE is collectively added. I can always add the gain from IC after the results of PE. The reason I'm interested is because it has been quoted time after time that PE has very little signicance,"So dont worry about it." Therefore I give very little attention to the value of PE. However,could this be a reminence of the old saying , "Always follow your count system and always take insurance when the count tells you to,if you dont you're making mistakes."? I've known for years that aces will give false results if they are included in the count while the dealer calls for insurance. I've been using this strategy for years but did not have sims to prove my point. Rather than giving this advice to other card counters and be flamed by others for doing so,I chose to remain silent and play my own game of blackjack.

I appreciate you taking the time to run excellent sims and verifying the huge impact aces have on systems that have the ace valued as minus. I've always broke the insurance rule of hi-lo and feel better knowing the ev gain was always there as I suspected. Thank you for the mathematical proof!

What simulator did you use to find the IC results and proper TC adjustments to be made by using composition dependent strategies?

I would like to thank you and Don for the advice and comments.

Brick

> Sincerely,
> Cacarulo

[Cacarulo]

> I blundered, thought you used the Ill 18.
> What does TOB stand for?

TOB: Theory Of Blackjack (book written by Peter Griffin)

> I appreciate you taking the time to run
> excellent sims and verifying the huge impact
> aces have on systems that have the ace
> valued as minus. I've always broke the
> insurance rule of hi-lo and feel better
> knowing the ev gain was always there as I
> suspected. Thank you for the mathematical
> proof!

You're welcome.

> What simulator did you use to find the IC
> results and proper TC adjustments to be made
> by using composition dependent strategies?

I used my own programs but CVData can also work with composition dependent strategies.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo