Were the indices in BJA3 calculated from scratch?
Cac
Were the indices in BJA3 calculated from scratch?
Cac
I think we have to wait for Norm for a double check.
Meanwhile somehow surprised by Zen beating Halves in shoe games (provided a 1 to 12/16 spread) and after reading you calmly I?ve extracted the following based exclusively in Richard Reid?s OSR formula who evaluate potential gains based exclusively in linear estimates of Betting correlations, Playing efficiency and Insurance correlations. Here are my results:
Overall System Ratings Comparison
Count 1-12 1-16
Halves 97.99 98.18
Zen 96.65 96.58
The higher IC of the Zen count doesn?t act with enough power to fight the monster BC of Halves.
Pure math, I know, no cut card placement, so pure linear estimates in gain. Moral? Let?s wait for confirmation.
Hope this helps, anyway.
Zenfighter
The indices were calculated for full decks. Also, the TC conversion was for full-deck. This was done in both count systems to provide an apple-to-apple comparison.
For example: Insurance index in Zem is +5 and Insurance index in Halves is +7.
Cac
I thought I provided the CVCX comparsion above, for I18. Adding four more indices can't possibly make any major difference to completely reverse the magnitude of the SCOREs.
There simply is no logic that I can think of behind Zen's outperforming Halves.
Don
If you double the values of Halves tags you should use 2 as the correct TC divisor. Otherwise you would made Halves somehow imprecise. E.g. the insurance index = 7. Probably here lies the problem. If you use Halves the way I count it, then the 1 is the correct divisor obviously. I don't think we have here an apple to apple comparison because that way Halves is at an initial slightly disadvantage with the Zen count.
Zenfighter
> Don't forget the SCORE chapter!!
Not forgotten at all -- but I need numbers for TKO.
I think Halves should be simmed the way Wong uses it.
Don
> If you double the values of Halves tags you
> should use 2 as the correct TC divisor.
> Otherwise you would made Halves somehow
> imprecise. E.g. the insurance index = 7.
> Probably here lies the problem. If you use
> Halves the way I count it, then the 1 is the
> correct divisor obviously. I don't think we
> have here an apple to apple comparison
> because that way Halves is at an initial
> slightly disadvantage with the Zen count.
If for Halves you use 2 as the TC divisor then you'll have to use 2 for Zen as well (Apple-to-Apple).
Maybe all these discrepancies have to do with the inclusion of LS. Probably CVCX sims used different indices (published) or the number of rounds were not enough.
I've generated indices (without LS) using CVdata and SBA and both are the same. This means that my sims should be correct. In any case, I would like to hear Norm's comments.
Sincerely,
Cac
Rules: 6dks, das, spl3 and spa1.
EV max indices, precision 3.5 sd Max n of pairs at index 200 million.
Insurance 3
16 vs T 0
15 vs T 4
16 vs 9 5
12 vs 6 -1
12 vs 5 -2
12 vs 4 0
12 vs 3 2
12 vs 2 4
13 vs 2 -1
13 vs 3 -2
9 vs 2 1
9 vs 7 4
11 vs A 1
10 s A 4
10 vs T 4
8 vs 6 2
8 vs 5 4
A8 vs 6 1
A8 vs 5 1
T,T vs 6 5
T,T vs 5 5
I don?t agree that Zen can out SCORE Halves provided 1-12 and or 1 ? 16 spread in any given standard shoe,
(4.5/6 and/or 5/6) if the Halves player uses the above printed indices. How can an ace-reckoned two level count (Zen) beat another three level one? (Halves) Can?t be true.
Sincerely
Zenfighter
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks