Narrowing the "Which Count?" Debate

[Three]

Did BJmath.com get archived here?

[Frank Galvin]

Can find many bjmath posts through search at web.archive.org.

[Gramazeka]

Super! This is the big work for Norm for copying.

[Bodarc]

http://web.archive.org/web/200801182...com/index.html

[Gramazeka]

Don, i wait you... Shoes game, EBJ 2 vs RPC...

[DSchles]

Run the sim. Do it yourself. Can't think there'd be much difference.

Don

[ZenMaster_Flash]

RE: bjmath.com

From the Wayback Machine:

"Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived."

[Norm]

Did BJmath.com get archived here?

We can't archive the site here as it was sold and remains copyrighted by the buyer. Normally, I wouldn't allow copying here. But, these copies all relate to his book, and he gave me permission to use anything in his book.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"… these copies all relate to his book, and he gave me permission to use anything in his book."

Great ! Will we be seeing at least some abstracts from the book ?

[Norm]

Alas, my password also no longer works. I included what I thought were his two most innovative ideas in my book. Fact is, he lost all his own source when he retired and moved. Happens. His interests changed to Chess -- a vastly more complex arena.

As for any tags, one can always generate their own strategy.

[moo321]

You cannot compare the "value" of systems uniquely by noting their BC and PE. And while we're at it, don't forget IC. That's why I created SCORE and did the study in BJA3. A system that outperforms another for SD may very well underperform for multi-deck, and vice-versa. A system that outperforms another at multi-deck, but with a play-all 1-16 spread may not outperfrom if back-counting with, say, just a 1-3 or 1-4 spread. Finally, as you all know, certain systems, with strong PEs for SD, REQUIRE that you use side counts and/or lots of indices to acquire that power.

Bottom line: pick the game you play most of the time. Then, using your personal set of indices, spread, and style of play, do the exact same sim for whatever counts you want to compare. That's the only approach that makes any sense. And, you won't always come up with the "better" one simply by looking at BC, PE, and IC. Trust me: been there, done that.

Don

Yep. This was why I threw out Halves. It has slightly better BC (like 1%) than RPC. But counting the 9 as negative hurt the insurance too much, and RPC just wins slightly more money, with less effort, in most games.

[moo321]

Interesting observation. RPC (or Felt) for pitch games vs Mentor. Mentor provides far greater PE which is suggested as vital for single and double deck. The other offers top BC but average PE. Since exercising PE plays and taking insurance too often will reduce pen in today's single deck game I split the difference and went with Wong Halves. As for the negative on 9, I always hit 12 vs 2, the only time it's going to matter is with a large bet and the difference is minimal and thus occurance is rare.


So Im curious, RPC is better than Mentor for double deck? If so, why?

RPC's complete, utter dominance is limited to shoe games. It's certainly a very good count for DD, especially with a larger spread. But, with lots of indexes, systems like Zen generally edge it out a tiny bit. But, I would argue, unless you are playing single deck a significant amount of time, RPC will be stronger than Zen. The differences are very close in DD (usually fractions of a percent), and RPC is just way better on shoes.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

IF this thread is concerned with "pitch games"

then it ought to consider only Level 2 counts

and above, primarily Hi-Opt II, A.O. II, and ZEN.

The best choices !