JohnAuston: Question for the room

[JohnAuston]

Assuming the Catch 22 indices, and taking into account the combined effect on both BE and PE, which of the card tags 2 thru 7, is the LEAST valuable to track?

Thanks!

John

[Cacarulo]

> Assuming the Catch 22 indices, and taking into account
> the combined effect on both BE and PE, which of the
> card tags 2 thru 7, is the LEAST valuable to track?

If I understand your question correctly the order would be the the following: 7, 2, 6, 3, 4 and 5 being 7 the LEAST valuable.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Don Schlesinger]

> If I understand your question correctly the order
> would be the the following: 7, 2, 6, 3, 4 and 5 being
> 7 the LEAST valuable.

This would be my answer, except for the fact that, since the 7 and the 2 are rather close, it might matter what your spread is, since the 7 is more valuable than the 2 for playing decisions. Suppose, Cac, that you were flat-betting, with back-counting. Would that still be the right order?

Don

[JohnAuston]

Well, my motive was to see if perhaps Red 7's should instead be Red 3's or something.

So, I guess it could possibly be Red 2's, but Red 7's is probably the best, after all.

[Cacarulo]

> This would be my answer, except for the fact that,
> since the 7 and the 2 are rather close, it might
> matter what your spread is, since the 7 is more
> valuable than the 2 for playing decisions. Suppose,
> Cac, that you were flat-betting, with back-counting.
> Would that still be the right order?

My answers were for flat-betting but you are right that a spread would alter the order. In fact, the reason I have for considering PE a useless parameter is because PE is spread-dependent.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

> Well, my motive was to see if perhaps Red 7's should
> instead be Red 3's or something.

> So, I guess it could possibly be Red 2's, but Red 7's
> is probably the best, after all.

Yes, Red 7's is best although I will go with KO even if you count the sevens as 0.5 (level 2 system).

Sincerely,
Cac