Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 33

Thread: Cacarulo: The HALVES vs ZEN dispute

  1. #14
    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

  2. #15
    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

  3. #16
    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?

  4. #17
    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

  5. #18
    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

  6. #19
    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

  7. #20
    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

  8. #21
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: any progress on this? *NM*


  9. #22
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Catch 22 without INSURANCE

    Sorry, I was a little short of time. Here are the sims:

    A) HALVES using C21 and NO INSURANCE

     
    play-all | rounds played = 100.00%
    spread ev/h sd/h ror% n0 di score ekb avb unit kelly
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 - 1 -0.325 11.615 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 10000.00 1.000 1.000 0.000
    1 - 2 0.053 16.270 13.53 9440241 0.33 0.11 4998.80 1.327 2.000 1.000
    1 - 3 0.416 20.488 13.53 242744 2.03 4.12 1009.43 1.540 9.907 1.000
    1 - 4 0.747 24.268 13.53 105682 3.08 9.46 788.93 1.707 12.675 1.000
    1 - 5 1.057 27.914 13.53 69743 3.79 14.34 737.18 1.855 13.565 1.000
    1 - 6 1.349 31.356 13.53 54043 4.30 18.50 728.92 1.989 13.719 1.000
    1 - 7 1.615 34.404 13.53 45396 4.69 22.03 733.01 2.103 13.642 1.000
    1 - 8 1.879 37.572 13.53 39973 5.00 25.02 751.19 2.221 13.312 1.000
    1 - 9 2.132 40.589 13.53 36260 5.25 27.58 772.89 2.332 12.939 1.000
    1 - 10 2.377 43.559 13.53 33572 5.46 29.79 798.10 2.440 12.530 1.000
    1 - 11 2.614 46.412 13.53 31530 5.63 31.72 824.12 2.543 12.134 1.000
    1 - 12 2.857 49.427 13.53 29933 5.78 33.41 855.14 2.652 11.694 1.000
    1 - 13 3.077 52.078 13.53 28649 5.91 34.91 881.45 2.747 11.345 1.000
    1 - 14 3.302 54.844 13.53 27591 6.02 36.24 910.99 2.846 10.977 1.000
    1 - 15 3.531 57.708 13.53 26708 6.12 37.44 943.07 2.949 10.604 1.000
    1 - 16 3.752 60.454 13.53 25959 6.21 38.52 974.02 3.047 10.267 1.000
    1 - 17 3.964 63.077 13.53 25316 6.29 39.50 1003.60 3.140 9.964 1.000
    1 - 18 4.178 65.729 13.53 24756 6.36 40.39 1034.18 3.235 9.670 1.000
    1 - 19 4.372 68.099 13.53 24264 6.42 41.21 1060.76 3.318 9.427 1.000
    1 - 20 4.570 70.540 13.53 23828 6.48 41.97 1088.87 3.404 9.184 1.000


    B) ZEN using C21 and NO INSURANCE

     
    play-all | rounds played = 100.00%
    spread ev/h sd/h ror% n0 di score ekb avb unit kelly
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 - 1 -0.315 11.617 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 10000.00 1.000 1.000 0.000
    1 - 2 0.053 16.704 13.5310109764 0.31 0.10 5311.17 1.357 1.883 1.000
    1 - 3 0.400 20.508 13.53 262447 1.95 3.81 1050.63 1.530 9.518 1.000
    1 - 4 0.717 24.141 13.53 113447 2.97 8.81 813.10 1.694 12.299 1.000
    1 - 5 1.010 27.613 13.53 74687 3.66 13.39 754.63 1.836 13.252 1.000
    1 - 6 1.295 31.134 13.53 57797 4.16 17.30 748.49 1.974 13.360 1.000
    1 - 7 1.557 34.281 13.53 48506 4.54 20.62 755.00 2.092 13.245 1.000
    1 - 8 1.812 37.450 13.53 42703 4.84 23.42 773.89 2.210 12.922 1.000
    1 - 9 2.054 40.421 13.53 38726 5.08 25.82 795.43 2.318 12.572 1.000
    1 - 10 2.302 43.584 13.53 35851 5.28 27.89 825.22 2.433 12.118 1.000
    1 - 11 2.522 46.276 13.53 33673 5.45 29.70 849.16 2.529 11.776 1.000
    1 - 12 2.749 49.152 13.53 31963 5.59 31.29 878.75 2.632 11.380 1.000
    1 - 13 2.982 52.154 13.53 30591 5.72 32.69 912.19 2.740 10.963 1.000
    1 - 14 3.188 54.731 13.53 29465 5.83 33.94 939.47 2.831 10.644 1.000
    1 - 15 3.400 57.418 13.53 28520 5.92 35.06 969.67 2.926 10.313 1.000
    1 - 16 3.615 60.193 13.53 27719 6.01 36.08 1002.14 3.024 9.979 1.000
    1 - 17 3.832 62.995 13.53 27032 6.08 36.99 1035.72 3.124 9.655 1.000
    1 - 18 4.026 65.455 13.53 26435 6.15 37.83 1064.20 3.210 9.397 1.000
    1 - 19 4.224 67.987 13.53 25909 6.21 38.60 1094.34 3.299 9.138 1.000
    1 - 20 4.425 70.579 13.53 25445 6.27 39.30 1125.82 3.390 8.882 1.000


    As you can appreciate it is clear that without insurance HALVES is far better than ZEN.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  10. #23
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: So . . .

    So now we have to decide why YOUR Insurace sims show the opposite of Norm and my Insurance sims.

    What can account for the HUGE gain that Zen gets, in your sims, from only the Insurance index.

    It does not make sense to me that counting the 9 would throw off proper detection of Insurance so much.

  11. #24
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: Are you sure . . .

    . . . that in your Insurance sims, it pays only 3 to 2?

    - John

  12. #25
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Correction

    "Are you sure ... that in your Insurance sims, it pays only 3 to 2?"

    You mean 2 to 1.

    Don

  13. #26
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: I was thinking of a Blackjack! :( *NM*


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.