> As a general rule EoR's derived indexes do
> not take into account cut card effects
> (penetration). Any estimate you can get
> while using them, no matter amount gained
> (see TOB, my working agenda), efficiencies
> or other things, are linear estimates that
> aren't trustful for small subsets of cards
> in which the optimal decision may differ
> greatly from its best linear estimate.

> With this in mind, simulated indexes seem to
> be better ones, among other things because
> they tend to be rounded to whole numbers, a
> lot easier for players to memorize and use
> them appropiately.

> The only problem we have here, as Prof.
> Griffin correctly pointed, is that the
> proper use of them, by rounding e.g., can
> contain as much as a 10% of error in playing
> decisions.

> Btw, there is no indexes-seller developed
> via montecarlo simulation, in his right
> state of mind, who doesn't claim the
> superiority of them over the algebraic
> ones.

> You have to give me at least, that the later
> ones are a lot cheaper!:-)

My indices for insurance were algebraically derived as well. I ran the sim just to see how good they are. So, what I'm trying to say is that we have a difference in the algebraic algorithm.

Sincerely,
Cac