A blast from the Past. An old thread post on "debating Level 1 systems" on wongs free

[BoSox]

PE is the metric that is a real mystery to me. I can't even find out what set of hand match ups is used to determine PE and how they are used. A number of times I have tried to find this info and never got my satisfaction. If anyone has info on the specifics of how PE is calculated I would love to hear it.

From the fall Issue of Snyder's 1998 BJF on the back cover shows PE and BC correlations for 50 different balanced level one and level two card counting systems. The best PE I could find out of the 50 examples had 3 systems tied with a .67 PE, but had BC of .88,.91, and .93. The chart gives the tags used for each card for all 50 systems. The chart also was Excerpted from the September 1981 BJF.

[BoSox]

From the fall Issue of Snyder's 1998 BJF on the back cover shows PE and BC correlations for 50 different balanced level one and level two card counting systems. The best PE I could find out of the 50 examples had 3 systems tied with a .67 PE, but had BC of .88,.91, and .93. The chart gives the tags used for each card for all 50 systems. The chart also was Excerpted from the September 1981 BJF.

The last chart listed had a PE of .55 but a BC of 1.00 here are the following tags starting from the twos 2,2,2,2,2,1,0,-1,-2,-2

[ZenMaster_Flash]

BC 989 PE 548 IC 742

Only the BC is acceptable.

[Three]

The last chart listed had a PE of .55 but a BC of 1.00 here are the following tags starting from the twos 2,2,2,2,2,1,0,-1,-2,-2

While the BC is 1.00, I can tell you it won't do a very good job of grouping similar situations together in the same TC bin. The tags for the low cards are too vanilla, with almost all of them counted the same weight as the 5. I am not certain as to what is optimal but counting the 4 and 5 with significantly heavier weights than the other low cards seems to be what is in order for grouping similar advantage situations together.