Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 33

Thread: Cacarulo: The HALVES vs ZEN dispute

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: The HALVES vs ZEN dispute

    The HALVES vs ZEN dispute

    Game Analyzed: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,C22 indices (floored),
    Heads Up,Play-All,10000 Million rounds (double than what I used in my previous
    sims)

    Note: All the sims in this post were run using SBA 5.52. The indices
    were also created with SBA (5 sigma). The reason for choosing SBA and not
    CVData is simply because I already have a C-program that imports the SBA
    output data which is then used to create the following tables:

    A) HALVES x 2 (using full-deck indices and full-deck estimation)

     play-all | rounds played = 100.00% 
    spread ev/h sd/h ror% n0 di score ekb avb unit kelly
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 - 1 -0.309 11.612 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 10000.00 1.000 1.000 0.000
    1 - 2 0.083 15.870 13.53 3685022 0.52 0.27 3046.39 1.289 3.283 1.000
    1 - 3 0.457 20.222 13.53 195874 2.26 5.11 894.97 1.523 11.174 1.000
    1 - 4 0.794 23.789 13.53 89788 3.34 11.14 712.81 1.677 14.029 1.000
    1 - 5 1.106 27.156 13.53 60252 4.07 16.60 666.57 1.810 15.002 1.000
    1 - 6 1.396 30.264 13.53 47030 4.61 21.26 656.31 1.927 15.237 1.000
    1 - 7 1.672 33.299 13.53 39646 5.02 25.22 663.01 2.038 15.083 1.000
    1 - 8 1.931 36.100 13.53 34962 5.35 28.60 675.01 2.138 14.815 1.000
    1 - 9 2.176 38.778 13.53 31744 5.61 31.50 690.89 2.232 14.474 1.000
    1 - 10 2.421 41.511 13.53 29392 5.83 34.02 711.65 2.329 14.052 1.000
    1 - 11 2.654 44.089 13.53 27607 6.02 36.22 732.56 2.419 13.651 1.000
    1 - 12 2.881 46.640 13.53 26201 6.18 38.17 754.94 2.507 13.246 1.000
    1 - 13 3.116 49.333 13.53 25070 6.32 39.89 781.11 2.601 12.802 1.000
    1 - 14 3.331 51.758 13.53 24140 6.44 41.43 804.16 2.685 12.435 1.000
    1 - 15 3.548 54.231 13.53 23359 6.54 42.81 828.85 2.770 12.065 1.000
    1 - 16 3.761 56.663 13.53 22697 6.64 44.06 853.64 2.854 11.714 1.000
    1 - 17 3.960 58.900 13.53 22125 6.72 45.20 876.10 2.930 11.414 1.000
    1 - 18 4.163 61.223 13.53 21627 6.80 46.24 900.33 3.010 11.107 1.000
    1 - 19 4.370 63.613 13.53 21189 6.87 47.20 925.96 3.092 10.800 1.000
    1 - 20 4.566 65.848 13.53 20802 6.93 48.07 949.71 3.169 10.530 1.000


    B) HALVES x 2 (using half-deck indices and half-deck estimation)

     play-all | rounds played = 100.00% 
    spread ev/h sd/h ror% n0 di score ekb avb unit kelly
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 - 1 -0.310 11.606 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 10000.00 1.000 1.000 0.000
    1 - 2 0.081 15.851 13.53 3809335 0.51 0.26 3093.62 1.289 3.232 1.000
    1 - 3 0.472 21.106 13.53 199827 2.24 5.00 943.50 1.578 10.599 1.000
    1 - 4 0.780 23.537 13.53 91059 3.31 10.98 710.27 1.672 14.079 1.000
    1 - 5 1.111 27.425 13.53 60910 4.05 16.42 676.85 1.830 14.774 1.000
    1 - 6 1.374 29.917 13.53 47413 4.59 21.09 651.42 1.919 15.351 1.000
    1 - 7 1.658 33.114 13.53 39868 5.01 25.08 661.18 2.037 15.124 1.000
    1 - 8 1.920 36.006 13.53 35157 5.33 28.44 675.13 2.142 14.812 1.000
    1 - 9 2.152 38.428 13.53 31886 5.60 31.36 686.20 2.225 14.573 1.000
    1 - 10 2.396 41.156 13.53 29498 5.82 33.90 706.83 2.321 14.148 1.000
    1 - 11 2.648 44.069 13.53 27693 6.01 36.11 733.35 2.425 13.636 1.000
    1 - 12 2.889 46.838 13.53 26288 6.17 38.04 759.40 2.523 13.168 1.000
    1 - 13 3.091 49.015 13.53 25150 6.31 39.76 777.31 2.597 12.865 1.000
    1 - 14 3.301 51.359 13.53 24208 6.43 41.31 799.08 2.677 12.514 1.000
    1 - 15 3.517 53.821 13.53 23418 6.53 42.70 823.62 2.762 12.142 1.000
    1 - 16 3.738 56.372 13.53 22748 6.63 43.96 850.22 2.851 11.762 1.000
    1 - 17 3.962 58.990 13.53 22173 6.72 45.10 878.39 2.942 11.384 1.000
    1 - 18 4.184 61.594 13.53 21676 6.79 46.13 906.83 3.033 11.027 1.000
    1 - 19 4.364 63.592 13.53 21239 6.86 47.08 926.75 3.101 10.790 1.000
    1 - 20 4.549 65.677 13.53 20850 6.93 47.96 948.33 3.172 10.545 1.000


    C) ZEN (using full-deck indices and full-deck estimation)

     play-all | rounds played = 100.00% 
    spread ev/h sd/h ror% n0 di score ekb avb unit kelly
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 - 1 -0.292 11.613 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 10000.00 1.000 1.000 0.000
    1 - 2 0.099 16.694 13.53 2859696 0.59 0.35 2823.09 1.357 3.542 1.000
    1 - 3 0.462 20.063 13.53 188984 2.30 5.29 872.20 1.507 11.465 1.000
    1 - 4 0.795 23.622 13.53 88209 3.37 11.34 701.58 1.662 14.253 1.000
    1 - 5 1.102 26.889 13.53 59544 4.10 16.79 656.12 1.790 15.241 1.000
    1 - 6 1.377 29.734 13.53 46595 4.63 21.46 641.83 1.895 15.580 1.000
    1 - 7 1.642 32.573 13.53 39339 5.04 25.42 646.06 1.998 15.479 1.000
    1 - 8 1.900 35.396 13.53 34714 5.37 28.81 659.49 2.097 15.163 1.000
    1 - 9 2.139 37.987 13.53 31538 5.63 31.71 674.61 2.187 14.823 1.000
    1 - 10 2.376 40.604 13.53 29212 5.85 34.23 693.99 2.278 14.410 1.000
    1 - 11 2.619 43.389 13.53 27449 6.04 36.43 718.85 2.375 13.911 1.000
    1 - 12 2.834 45.759 13.53 26064 6.19 38.37 738.75 2.455 13.536 1.000
    1 - 13 3.057 48.287 13.53 24946 6.33 40.09 762.65 2.541 13.112 1.000
    1 - 14 3.285 50.926 13.53 24028 6.45 41.62 789.38 2.632 12.668 1.000
    1 - 15 3.496 53.326 13.53 23261 6.56 42.99 813.29 2.714 12.296 1.000
    1 - 16 3.702 55.668 13.53 22607 6.65 44.23 837.00 2.793 11.947 1.000
    1 - 17 3.913 58.092 13.53 22045 6.74 45.36 862.51 2.875 11.594 1.000
    1 - 18 4.126 60.580 13.53 21557 6.81 46.39 889.44 2.960 11.243 1.000
    1 - 19 4.334 62.997 13.53 21129 6.88 47.33 915.70 3.042 10.921 1.000
    1 - 20 4.527 65.207 13.53 20751 6.94 48.19 939.30 3.116 10.646 1.000


    D) ZEN (using half-deck indices and half-deck estimation)

     play-all | rounds played = 100.00% 
    spread ev/h sd/h ror% n0 di score ekb avb unit kelly
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 - 1 -0.293 11.609 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 10000.00 1.000 1.000 0.000
    1 - 2 0.088 15.547 13.53 3146906 0.56 0.32 2758.00 1.265 3.626 1.000
    1 - 3 0.468 20.493 13.53 191414 2.29 5.22 896.59 1.530 11.153 1.000
    1 - 4 0.779 23.475 13.53 90800 3.32 11.01 707.38 1.666 14.137 1.000
    1 - 5 1.085 26.780 13.53 60894 4.05 16.42 660.83 1.794 15.132 1.000
    1 - 6 1.375 30.036 13.53 47697 4.58 20.97 655.97 1.918 15.245 1.000
    1 - 7 1.614 32.345 13.53 40182 4.99 24.89 648.36 1.996 15.424 1.000
    1 - 8 1.871 35.188 13.53 35387 5.32 28.26 661.92 2.096 15.108 1.000
    1 - 9 2.137 38.304 13.53 32121 5.58 31.13 686.50 2.207 14.567 1.000
    1 - 10 2.380 41.061 13.53 29772 5.80 33.59 708.48 2.304 14.115 1.000
    1 - 11 2.584 43.209 13.53 27968 5.98 35.76 722.59 2.375 13.839 1.000
    1 - 12 2.798 45.587 13.53 26540 6.14 37.68 742.66 2.456 13.465 1.000
    1 - 13 3.020 48.121 13.53 25388 6.28 39.39 766.74 2.542 13.042 1.000
    1 - 14 3.247 50.764 13.53 24443 6.40 40.91 793.65 2.633 12.600 1.000
    1 - 15 3.478 53.487 13.53 23656 6.50 42.27 822.65 2.727 12.156 1.000
    1 - 16 3.711 56.270 13.53 22992 6.59 43.49 853.22 2.823 11.720 1.000
    1 - 17 3.901 58.417 13.53 22422 6.68 44.60 874.74 2.895 11.432 1.000
    1 - 18 4.084 60.467 13.53 21923 6.75 45.61 895.30 2.964 11.169 1.000
    1 - 19 4.271 62.605 13.53 21483 6.82 46.55 917.60 3.035 10.898 1.000
    1 - 20 4.463 64.812 13.53 21093 6.89 47.41 941.28 3.109 10.624 1.000


    The most important thing to understand from these tables is that full-deck indices
    with full-deck estimation is far better than half-deck indices with half-deck
    estimation! This means that the correct comparison would be A) against C) which
    again shows ZEN outperforming HALVES.

    If anyone wanted the input/output data from SBA just let me know and I'll post it
    here. Besides, it is useful is you want to use BJRM.

    Also, just in case SBA 5.52 were not enough to convince you I did run another lengthy sim
    but with my own simulator. The advantage of it is that it does not require any imports
    which allows me to get a little more precision. Here it goes:

    E) HALVES x 2 (using full-deck indices and full-deck estimation)

     play-all | rounds played = 100.00% 
    spread ev/h sd/h ror% n0 di score ekb avb unit kelly
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 - 1 -0.308 11.613 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 10000.00 1.000 1.000 0.000
    1 - 2 0.084 15.874 13.53 3597675 0.53 0.28 3010.89 1.289 3.321 1.000
    1 - 3 0.458 20.201 13.53 194812 2.27 5.13 891.60 1.521 11.216 1.000
    1 - 4 0.796 23.798 13.53 89471 3.34 11.18 711.85 1.676 14.048 1.000
    1 - 5 1.105 27.074 13.53 60044 4.08 16.65 663.41 1.805 15.074 1.000
    1 - 6 1.397 30.246 13.53 46868 4.62 21.34 654.78 1.925 15.272 1.000
    1 - 7 1.673 33.258 13.53 39519 5.03 25.30 661.15 2.035 15.125 1.000
    1 - 8 1.932 36.070 13.53 34854 5.36 28.69 673.40 2.135 14.850 1.000
    1 - 9 2.174 38.677 13.53 31644 5.62 31.60 688.01 2.226 14.535 1.000
    1 - 10 2.420 41.419 13.53 29298 5.84 34.13 708.95 2.323 14.105 1.000
    1 - 11 2.655 44.050 13.53 27520 6.03 36.34 730.74 2.414 13.685 1.000
    1 - 12 2.884 46.607 13.53 26120 6.19 38.29 753.23 2.503 13.276 1.000
    1 - 13 3.119 49.305 13.53 24993 6.33 40.01 779.47 2.597 12.829 1.000
    1 - 14 3.331 51.667 13.53 24066 6.45 41.55 801.51 2.678 12.476 1.000
    1 - 15 3.548 54.145 13.53 23288 6.55 42.94 826.27 2.764 12.103 1.000
    1 - 16 3.767 56.663 13.53 22628 6.65 44.19 852.35 2.851 11.732 1.000
    1 - 17 3.966 58.905 13.53 22059 6.73 45.33 874.87 2.927 11.430 1.000
    1 - 18 4.170 61.233 13.53 21563 6.81 46.38 899.16 3.007 11.121 1.000
    1 - 19 4.377 63.627 13.53 21128 6.88 47.33 924.84 3.089 10.813 1.000
    1 - 20 4.575 65.896 13.53 20743 6.94 48.21 949.05 3.167 10.537 1.000


    F) ZEN (using full-deck indices and full-deck estimation)

     play-all | rounds played = 100.00% 
    spread ev/h sd/h ror% n0 di score ekb avb unit kelly
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 - 1 -0.292 11.614 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 10000.00 1.000 1.000 0.000
    1 - 2 0.099 16.699 13.53 2839117 0.59 0.35 2813.71 1.357 3.554 1.000
    1 - 3 0.463 20.083 13.53 188394 2.30 5.31 871.70 1.508 11.472 1.000
    1 - 4 0.796 23.607 13.53 87992 3.37 11.36 700.26 1.661 14.280 1.000
    1 - 5 1.103 26.883 13.53 59386 4.10 16.84 655.11 1.790 15.265 1.000
    1 - 6 1.378 29.705 13.53 46457 4.64 21.53 640.26 1.894 15.619 1.000
    1 - 7 1.645 32.572 13.53 39220 5.05 25.50 645.05 1.997 15.503 1.000
    1 - 8 1.903 35.399 13.53 34610 5.38 28.89 658.56 2.097 15.185 1.000
    1 - 9 2.143 38.004 13.53 31445 5.64 31.80 673.91 2.187 14.839 1.000
    1 - 10 2.380 40.625 13.53 29127 5.86 34.33 693.33 2.278 14.423 1.000
    1 - 11 2.624 43.411 13.53 27371 6.04 36.54 718.18 2.375 13.924 1.000
    1 - 12 2.840 45.784 13.53 25991 6.20 38.48 738.11 2.455 13.548 1.000
    1 - 13 3.063 48.315 13.53 24877 6.34 40.20 762.03 2.542 13.123 1.000
    1 - 14 3.292 50.957 13.53 23962 6.46 41.73 788.78 2.633 12.678 1.000
    1 - 15 3.502 53.330 13.53 23197 6.57 43.11 812.23 2.713 12.312 1.000
    1 - 16 3.708 55.674 13.53 22545 6.66 44.36 835.95 2.792 11.962 1.000
    1 - 17 3.919 58.101 13.53 21985 6.74 45.49 861.47 2.875 11.608 1.000
    1 - 18 4.133 60.592 13.53 21498 6.82 46.52 888.40 2.959 11.256 1.000
    1 - 19 4.337 62.953 13.53 21072 6.89 47.46 913.82 3.039 10.943 1.000
    1 - 20 4.530 65.166 13.53 20694 6.95 48.33 937.43 3.114 10.668 1.000


    For me this is case closed

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Sorry, can't agree

    > The most important thing to understand from
    > these tables is that full-deck indices
    > with full-deck estimation is far better than
    > half-deck indices with half-deck
    > estimation!

    Let's start with that statement. Why would you think this is true? What sense does it make to you? In what way does being more accurate with deck estimation lead to less desirable results? I can't accept that as being true. It flies in the face of logic.

    > This means that the correct
    > comparison would be A) against C) which
    > again shows ZEN outperforming HALVES.

    Do you have any explanation for the Zen-Halves comparisons of BJA3, p. 172, Table 9.21, where Halves outperforms Zen on every line?

    I'd love to accept your data, but they make no sense to me.

    Finally, I offer you the following from CVCX:

    Zen I18 s17, 5/6, das, 1-16 spread: SCORE = 36.75
    Halves I18 s17, 5/6, das, 1-16 spread: SCORE = 41.57.

    Not even close!

    > For me this is case closed

    Clearly, not for me, by a very long shot.

    Don


  3. #3
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Sorry, can't agree

    > Let's start with that statement. Why would
    > you think this is true? What sense does it
    > make to you? In what way does being more
    > accurate with deck estimation lead to less
    > desirable results? I can't accept that as
    > being true. It flies in the face of logic.

    > Do you have any explanation for the
    > Zen-Halves comparisons of BJA3, p. 172,
    > Table 9.21, where Halves outperforms Zen on
    > every line?

    > I'd love to accept your data, but they make
    > no sense to me.

    > Finally, I offer you the following from
    > CVCX:

    > Zen I18 s17, 5/6, das, 1-16 spread: SCORE =
    > 36.75
    > Halves I18 s17, 5/6, das, 1-16 spread: SCORE
    > = 41.57.

    > Not even close!

    > Clearly, not for me, by a very long shot.

    None of the sims you are pointing me to are the same as the ones I posted. I think this discussion doesn't make sense if nobody else is willing to prove what I wrote so, at least for me Zen clearly outperforms Halves under the mentioned conditions.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  4. #4
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Sorry, can't agree

    > None of the sims you are pointing me to are
    > the same as the ones I posted.

    Do you think that there's something about LS or adding four indices that would so drastically turn the results? That just isn't fair to suggest.

    And CVCX was done without LS, so everything was identical, except for the four additional indices for Catch-22, which surely aren't going to magically render Zen more powerful than Halves.

    Finally, It was SBA that John used to generate the charts in BJA3, so we truly have a strange dilemma, no?

    > I think this
    > discussion doesn't make sense if nobody else
    > is willing to prove what I wrote so, at
    > least for me Zen clearly outperforms Halves
    > under the mentioned conditions.

    You're entitled to believe that, of course. I'm entitled to believe that a level-2 balanced, true-counted system isn't going to outperform the Rolls Royce of level-3 balanced, true counted systems (99+% BC) in a shoe game with a 1-16 spread. :-)

    Don


  5. #5
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Sorry, can't agree

    > Do you think that there's something about LS
    > or adding four indices that would so
    > drastically turn the results? That just
    > isn't fair to suggest.

    Haven't run sims with LS so I can't comment there.

    > And CVCX was done without LS, so everything
    > was identical, except for the four
    > additional indices for Catch-22, which
    > surely aren't going to magically render Zen
    > more powerful than Halves.

    The reasons could be many, namely less indices, different set of indices used, standard error (not too many rounds simmed), burned cards, more players at the table, etc.

    > Finally, It was SBA that John used to
    > generate the charts in BJA3, so we truly
    > have a strange dilemma, no?

    That's why I posted SBA's input/output data.

    > You're entitled to believe that, of course.
    > I'm entitled to believe that a level-2
    > balanced, true-counted system isn't going to
    > outperform the Rolls Royce of level-3
    > balanced, true counted systems (99+% BC) in
    > a shoe game with a 1-16 spread. :-)

    Ahh, but BC isn't everything. You're underestimating the value of Insurance Shouldn't we use the SCORE to measure these things? :-)

    Cac

  6. #6
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Full indexes from Norm's archived sims

    From CVCX archives I?ve copied these two Norm?s reports:

     

    PA Opt 1-16 Kb Avg.Bet %W/L $100 SD/100 RoR N0 DI SCORE
    Zen full ind. 793 34.68 1.35 46.95 706.49 13.5 21308 6.85 46.93
    Halves full ind.797 33.78 1.38 46.52 706.88 13.5 21481 6.82 46.55


    According to Norm the first one is Zen(?80), Heads up (2000 e09) and the second one Halves, Full indexes (2000 e09).

    Skipping here the word ?Heads up? probably means with three other customers at the table, for the second one. Norm should clarify this. Heads up could be another story. Also 22 indexes only, too. But all in all Cacarulo has his chances being right here.

    I will try to go for Catch 22.

    A little of patience, please.

    Zenfighter

  7. #7
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Too many questions

    > From CVCX archives I?ve copied these two
    > Norm?s reports:
    >
    > PA Opt 1-16 Kb Avg.Bet %W/L $100 SD/100 RoR
    > N0 DI SCORE
    > Zen full ind. 793 34.68 1.35 46.95 706.49
    > 13.5 21308 6.85 46.93
    > Halves full ind.797 33.78 1.38 46.52 706.88
    > 13.5 21481 6.82 46.55
    > According to Norm the first one is
    > Zen(?80), Heads up (2000 e09) and the second
    > one Halves, Full indexes (2000 e09).
    > Skipping here the word ?Heads up? probably
    > means with three other customers at the
    > table, for the second one. Norm should
    > clarify this. Heads up could be another
    > story. Also 22 indexes only, too. But all in
    > all Cacarulo has his chances being right
    > here.
    > I will try to go for Catch 22.

    "Full indexes" can't be an apples-to-apples comparison, because it means different things for different counts. The only way to compare is when the actual I18 (or Catch-22) are indicated, because then we know the same number of indexes, and the same plays were used for both sims.

    Finally, once again, no one is addressing why the CVCX I18 sims for the two counts come out the way they do -- heavily in favor of Halves -- or why the SBA sims that John ran for BJA3 come out the same way.

    Don

  8. #8
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: I'm trying . . .

    > Finally, once again, no one is addressing
    > why the CVCX I18 sims for the two counts
    > come out the way they do -- heavily in favor
    > of Halves -- or why the SBA sims that John
    > ran for BJA3 come out the same way.

    . . . to help zero in on that ( see request to have the sims rerun, sans Insurance )

    My thinking is , since the main edge Zen would have on Halves would be on Insurance, maybe the problem is there. SBA allows you set what ratio Insurance pays off at. Maybe that is accidentally set for a bigger Insurance payoff, playing to Zen?s edge?

    Just guessing at this point.

    John

  9. #9
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: Try running both sims again, . . .

    . . . but don't let either system use an Insurance index.

    That should help isolate the negative effect on Insurance, of Halves counting the nine.

  10. #10
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Try running both sims again, . . .

    > . . . but don't let either system use an
    > Insurance index.

    > That should help isolate the negative effect
    > on Insurance, of Halves counting the nine.

    That's exactly what I said in a thread below. The power of ZEN resides precisely in its insurance efficiency.
    Don't need to run the sims because it is obvious that without Insurance HALVES must outperforms ZEN.

    In any case, I've posted all the details of my sims just in case you or anyone wanted to verify the posted SCOREs.

    Thanks.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  11. #11
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: Re: Try running both sims again, . . .

    >>Don't need to run the sims because it is obvious that without Insurance HALVES must outperforms ZEN.

    Well, what say we just see, eh?

    Some very smart people say it is obvious that HALVES outperforms ZEN even with Insurance.

    Please. Re-run the sims that show Zen winning, but just disable the Insurance index for both Zen and Halves.

    Then, if ALL the advantage goes away, we will know that that was it, and can debate whether or not that makes sense.

    But if Zen still wins, then we will have learned something important that will let us continue further analysis into the "anomaly".

    What would be the reason to NOT re-run the sims without Insurance?

  12. #12
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Try running both sims again, . . .

    > Well, what say we just see, eh?

    > Some very smart people say it is obvious
    > that HALVES outperforms ZEN even with
    > Insurance.

    > Please. Re-run the sims that show Zen
    > winning, but just disable the Insurance
    > index for both Zen and Halves.

    > Then, if ALL the advantage goes away, we
    > will know that that was it, and can debate
    > whether or not that makes sense.

    Seems fair.

    > But if Zen still wins, then we will have
    > learned something important that will let us
    > continue further analysis into the
    > "anomaly".

    > What would be the reason to NOT re-run the
    > sims without Insurance?

    There's no problem, I'll do it.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  13. #13
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: any progress on this? *NM*


Page 1 of 3 123 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.