Praying Mantis: UBZ II or TKO?

[bfbagain]

I wonder how LS affects those two systems. Also, are you using the published indices for both AOII and HiOPT II? And one more...what about using the full indices as opposed to the catch 22?

Here's why I asked. I use a full set of AOII indices. But they are MY set of indices, not Bryce's.

They were determined after many generations between SBA and CVDATA. Much more than any normal person, or even, I submit, a bj researcher would run, unless that was their system of choice, as it is for me.

I then interpolated the indices (all risk-averse btw), rerun the sims again, and again, to extract every ounce of power, so what I have today, compared to Hi Opt II (using CVCX) is a little more powerful.

But....and now as I think about it. I'm not sure that the HiOpt II sims in CVCX are with full indices AND the ace side count, which might explain why your numbers seem considerably higher.

Hmmm. I'll have to go back and check this. As it is, I have no doubt that I have the most powerful set of AOII indices on the planet. :-) Although I could be wrong.

Do you think you could run your sims again with RSA and LS. I'm thinking that should narrow the gap a little.

Thank you so much cac
bfb

[Cacarulo]

> I wonder how LS affects those two systems.
> Also, are you using the published indices
> for both AOII and HiOPT II? And one
> more...what about using the full indices as
> opposed to the catch 22?

No, I calculated those indices from scratch. They are EM-indices (EV-Maximizing). It wouldn't be fair to use the published indices since some of them are RA. In order to have an apple to apple comparison they should all be EM or RA.
Of course, you can get an RA set of the C22 and the SCOREs will improve.
A full set will obviously be better but I think that not by that much.

> Here's why I asked. I use a full set of AOII
> indices. But they are MY set of indices, not
> Bryce's.

Sure. If you use a commercial simulator you'll get better indices.

> They were determined after many generations
> between SBA and CVDATA. Much more than any
> normal person, or even, I submit, a bj
> researcher would run, unless that was their
> system of choice, as it is for me.

> I then interpolated the indices (all
> risk-averse btw), rerun the sims again, and
> again, to extract every ounce of power, so
> what I have today, compared to Hi Opt II
> (using CVCX) is a little more powerful.

> But....and now as I think about it. I'm not
> sure that the HiOpt II sims in CVCX are with
> full indices AND the ace side count , which
> might explain why your numbers seem
> considerably higher.

> Hmmm. I'll have to go back and check this.
> As it is, I have no doubt that I have the
> most powerful set of AOII indices on the
> planet. :-) Although I could be wrong.

Put all that effort in Hi-Opt II and I'm sure Hi-Opt II will outperform AOII. The reason is simple: Hi-Opt II does not count the nine and Insurance is the play that makes up for the difference!

> Do you think you could run your sims again
> with RSA and LS. I'm thinking that should
> narrow the gap a little.

Same answer given to Parker. I didn't run any sims for this comparison. This was already done a long time ago.

Sincerely,
Cac

[bfbagain]

Thank you for your time and answers cac. Too bad about not doing those sims for RSA and LS, huh. Maybe someone else has done those.

Yes, the insurance efficiency would make a superior difference. And given the same effort towards Hi Opt II that I gave AOII, that could be significant as well.

However, I think what this does do, is clearly show that if one was so inclined, and playing errors notwithstanding, it would be hard pressed to come up with a better system than either one of these two. And when applied to SD and DD, fuhgedabouit. No contest.

cheers
bfb