I can recite 165 index numbers in my sleep and can count down a 52-card deck starting from a face down position in under 14 seconds.
? D.S.
During my younger days, I remember also having no problems matching the three digits figure of one of my BJ?s heroes. Curiously, the two digits one remains still untouched!
Personally, thanks again for the indices.
You?re welcome!
Sincerely
Z
Don
Thank you, once again, for your timely feedback. The information, as always, is much appreciated.
As has been noted before, on this site a virtual dialogue with top experts is available. No other site reliably supplies that. If you have a question, DD is the place to ask it.
Thanks, JL
> Thank you, once again, for your timely
> feedback. The information, as always, is
> much appreciated.
> As has been noted before, on this site a
> virtual dialogue with top experts is
> available. No other site reliably supplies
> that. If you have a question, DD is the
> place to ask it.
Glad to oblige, John. We appreciate your participation. And, one day soon, I'll get you that sim to compare SCOREs of traditional versus C-D indices. I'd like to see it myself -- although I already know how little difference there will be. :-)
Don
disjunctive
disiunctio -onis f. [separation , estrangement]; in logic, [a disjunctive proposition].
disiungo (diiungo) -iungere -iunxi -iunctum [to unbind , loosen, separate, remove, distinguish]. Hence partic. disiunctus -a -um, [separated, apart, distant, remote]; of speech, [disconnected]; in logic, [disjunctive]. Compar. adv. disiunctius, [rather in disjunctive fashion].
Latin is the key. Don't forget! :-)
Regards
Z
"And, one day soon, I'll get
you that sim to compare SCOREs of
traditional versus C-D indices. I'd like to
see it myself -- although I already know how
little difference there will be. :-)"
> Don
Don
Your stated intention to run sims is very gracious. However, your posts and those of Zenfighter have convinced me that CD indices are indeed quite inconsequential.
The most significant of these indices would most probably be the 16 v 10 indices. Zen's calculations show only a 3% gain by using the 2 card indices. Even adding to that the 3 card indices for that play would in all probability not extend that gain beyond 5%. So I think your point is made.
I deleted 2 posts in this thread that argued my point on a subjective basis. I've decided to post that subjective argument below. I think any interest in the post now does not relate to the importance of 16 v 10 CD indices. You have established that. Any interest in the post now would simply be to observe the deceptiveness of subjective arguments.
-- JL
Subjective argument regarding the value of CD indices:
I returned this week from a week of good blackjack. Reno is single deck heaven. Tahoe, with the exception of Caesar's, isn't.
I played utilizing, for the first time, the CD indices I mentioned in my post. Thanks again to Zenfighter for providing those.
I use a full set of hi-lo indices. Many indices, as expected, never came up in my week of play.
These CD indices I cited in my original post, by contrast, came up over and over again. They are all very common plays. And, with the exception of 16 vs 9 (+2 to +7), the indices are close to 0. This, of course, makes their actual use much more common.
16 v 10, for example, is particularly common. It is second only to insurance in importance. The mean (standard) SD index for this play is +1 (Wong) (0, Zenfighter.) The CD indices (derived from Zen's data) for this hand, however, are as follows: hands with a 6 (including 10,6) = +3. 9,7 = 0. Other hands = -2.
This is a quite wide spread in indices (5 points), centered around 0, in a very common hand.
"I would venture to guess that use of any of these groups of CD indices would be of greater consequence than use of virtually any non Ill 18 indices , and, as such, a useful refinement of the SD game." -- original post.
I concede this was overstated. But I continue to assert that the CD indices of 16 v 10 (especially), and the other hands mentioned, are very valuable compared to many hi-lo indices.
All this is subjective thought, of course. The other way to look at the question subjectively is this -- how much effect could a single card or a pair of cards, outside of count, have on outcome, even in SD? The question viewed that way makes CD indices seem inevitably inconsequential.
John:
I think you should wait until someone here, as Donald stated, show us the exact figures of the total gain by using the CD indexes.
By the moment consider the following hypothetical cases:
SD, H17 pen 67.31%, catch 22 Hilo comp-dep indexes.
a) Your w/100 increases by a 0.05% only
b) Your w/100 increases by a 0.1%
Now you have:
DI = (w/100)/sd therefore
SCORE = [(w/100)/sd] ^2
This squaring factor, as Don taught us in the Theory page, is the main reason why a little increase in win rate can have a significant correspondingly increase in SCORE.
The following figures for the above rules may convince you:
w/100 SCORE Increase (%)
1.39% $ 98.60
1.44% $105.88 7.38%
1.49% $113.42 15.03%
Moral? Wait for the real simulations. I will go even for the 0.05% increase. What about the satisfaction?
Sincerely
Z
I ran four sims using AOII since it has a high PE. Single deck, H17, NDAS, heads-up, five rounds, full indexes, 4:1 Spread, 2 billion rounds each. The four sims were:
1. AOII with all indexes out of the book.
2. Same, but a +1 index for 16v10 which I believe to be more accurate. (This is the CVData index.)
3. AOII with the 2-card CD indexes for 16v10 (9,7v10 -1 and 10,6v10 +4.)
4. Same but added the 15 3-card CDs (ranged from -5 to +9.)
Resulting SCOREs:
1. 75.21
2. 75.68
3. 76.08
4. 76.77
As you can see the gain is trivial. Of course it's possible that 16v10 is not the best example. 12v2, 12v3, 13v2 might be better or Surrender, Insurance or DD CDs might be better. And certainly it would be better with CDs for multiple decisions. But generally speaking, I think CD decisions are more important for basic strategy play than counting.
Average gains for varying basic strategy (thousand of a percent)
using only Catch 22 indexes, according to Griffin?s table from page 30.
Insurance 186
16 vs T 95
15 vs T 47
13 vs 2 34
12 vs 4 30
12 vs 3 29
12 vs 6 28
13 vs 3 28
TT vs 6 27
TT vs 5 25
12 vs 2 23
12 vs 5 22
16 vs 9 19
10 vs T 18
11 vs A 13
9 vs 7 10
9 vs 2 8
10 vs A 8
8 vs 5 8
8 vs 6 7
A8 vs 5 5
A8 vs 4 4
Total 674
Given that this table is already weighted to their probabilities of occurrences, our 16 vs T
is responsible only for:
95/674 = .1409 of the total strategic gain available.
And certainly it would be better with CDs for multiple decisions.
Exactly, yes.
Btw, I was sure you got the capabilities to run complexities of this type. No doubts whatsoever!
Appreciated, Norm.
Sincerely
Z
"Single deck, H17,
NDAS, heads-up, five rounds, full indexes, 4:1 Spread, 2 billion rounds
each. The four sims were:
1. AOII with all indexes out of the book.
2. Same, but a +1 index for 16v10 which I believe to be more accurate.
(This is the CVData index.)
3. AOII with the 2-card CD indexes for 16v10 (9,7v10 -1 and 10,6v10 +4.)
4. Same but added the 15 3-card CDs (ranged from -5 to +9.)
Resulting SCOREs:
1. 75.21
2. 75.68
3. 76.08
4. 76.77 "
Norm
Very interesting data. I had to leap to my monogramed Pickett slide rule (aluminum!) to prepare comments.
My comments are based on my understanding that you are reporting net, global (total game) SCOREs. If my understanding is incorrect, please inform me. If I am incorrect, the following comments are invalid.
a) you note a 0.6% increase in SCORE soley by adopting a more refined index for 16 v 10. Is this refinement a single index point? Or analogous to a single index point in hi-lo? If so, that's quite impressive. I have previously accepted as axiomatic a statement by Eliot Jacobson that a single index point is insignificant.
b) you report a 0.5% increase in SCORE by use of 2-card 16 v 10 indices (#3 v #2.) Again, if this is total game SCORE improvement, that is a very impressive gain by use of these 2 simple indices. You state that "the gain is trivial." In the context of utilization of a tool as simple as 2 additional indices, I would characterize this gain as quite significant rather than trivial.
c) the gain using 3-card 16 v 10 indices v 2-card indices (#3 v #4) is 0.9%. The gain using all CD 16 v 10 indices (#2 v #4) is 1.4%. Again, if this is global SCORE that is reported, this is quite impressive.
d) 15 3-card indices are daunting and impractical, in my opinion. However, on this site it was noted that, for hi-lo, these indices could be reasonably compacted to 2 indices. 2 indices are certainly manageable. It would be interesting to see SCORE data for this more practical index scheme.
e) you mention other possibly significant CD indices ("12v2, 12v3, 13v2, ... Surrender, Insurance or DD".) I would submit that all of the 13 v dealer stiff indices are significant, as well as 16 v 9 indices.
f) 3 card indices, to my knowledge, have been properly assessed only for 16 v 10 and 16 v 9. That, again, done on this site. By properly assessed, I mean not only calculated, but examined for patterns that will simplify, and make practical, index use. 3 card index examination for the other hands identified as significant would be of interest, and would possibly also contribute significantly to gain from CD index use.
g) your results, of course are for AOII. The king of counts. It would be interesting to learn, for the majority of us who must be content to settle for hi-lo, if results for hi-lo are comparable.
Thanks, JL
Yes this is the improvement for one index. I guess that significance is a relative term. Considering the frequency of 16v10, and the fact that there are only two 2-card indexes, it's not much added effort to use them. Or, at least the 10,6 v 10 which occurs four times as often as 9,7 v 10. If you want to squeeze everything out of the count you can, and you play single deck, and you are already 100% accurate at using the your current indexes, streatching the science a bit further is an option.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks