Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 35

Thread: Praying Mantis: UBZ II or TKO?

  1. #14
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Eye - opener post!

    Now that you?ve convinced me of the modern ways to side count aces and watching a couple of ?bastards? beating my Rolls Royce, next week I?ll start to side count aces for my poor Halves. A shame! :-)

    What?s important inside your post, is that there is something for everyone. Nice.

    Regards

    Zenfighter


  2. #15
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Some concerns

    I'm a bit surprised by some of these findings. On p. 172 of BJA3, we have a similar chart, but for surrender, with all the SCOREs appropriately much higher.

    What concerns me is not the absolute magnitude of the numbers, but the rankings, or relative findings. For example, in BJA3, for a 1-12 play-all spread, Halves outperforms Zen by a considerable margin, and you have quite the opposite. Frankly, I can't see how or why Halves would underperform Zen.

    For example, a CVCX comparison for your conditions, but with the I18, gives 35.76 For Halves and 32.03 for Zen, very much in line with the BJA3 charts (which allowed surrender, but which respect this hierarchy of ranking). I'm worried that something isn't right with what you've posted.

    As you peruse both charts, you will see some other, seemingly surprising, inconsistencies.

    Don

  3. #16
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: BJA3, p. 171, Tables 9.19 and 9.20

    Don't forget the SCORE chapter!!

    Don

  4. #17
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: BJA3, Chapter 9

    In addition to Cac's stellar efforts, you might want to consult the SCORE chapter of BJA3.

    How quickly we forget! :-)

    Don

  5. #18
    bfbagain
    Guest

    bfbagain: Insurance! Damn insurance. :-)

    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

  6. #19
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Some concerns

    > I'm a bit surprised by some of these
    > findings. On p. 172 of BJA3, we have a
    > similar chart, but for surrender, with all
    > the SCOREs appropriately much higher.

    > What concerns me is not the absolute
    > magnitude of the numbers, but the rankings,
    > or relative findings. For example, in BJA3,
    > for a 1-12 play-all spread, Halves
    > outperforms Zen by a considerable margin,
    > and you have quite the opposite. Frankly, I
    > can't see how or why Halves would
    > underperform Zen.

    I don't have BJA3 right here but are we talking about the same conditions, same # of rounds, etc.? Zen is another system that does not count the nine and probably with 5/6 pen and C22 indices does beat Halves. Maybe Norman can run a sim using the same conditions and I will do my part too.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  7. #20
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Eye - opener post!

    > Now that you?ve convinced me of the modern
    > ways to side count aces and watching a
    > couple of ?bastards? beating my Rolls Royce,
    > next week I?ll start to side count aces for
    > my poor Halves. A shame! :-)

    > What?s important inside your post, is that
    > there is something for everyone. Nice.

    Thank you!

    Here is one for you:

     
    1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
    Halves/A 12.39 30.64 40.45 46.43 50.47


    Cac

  8. #21
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: More

    Were the indices in BJA3 calculated from scratch?

    Cac

  9. #22
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Halves/Zen concerns

    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

  10. #23
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Another one

    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

  11. #24
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: I meant Zen. *NM*


  12. #25
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Halves/Zen concerns

    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

  13. #26
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Searching for motives

    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


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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.