E.O.R. question

**stopgambling** · 09-19-2016, 12:15 PM

I have read a post made by eric farmer and some response by t3 and alienated , brett harris and ICNT. I was wondering if I understood it correctly in a general level. Is the second set of EOR more " rounded " for the entire deck , therefore using it would result in a less volatile result? Maybe at least for the remaining 2/3 of the shoe. The EOR does not seemed to be a great difference except for the increased value across all tags. It seems to me that would result in more advantage for positive counts and more disadvantages in negative counts when compared to the former EOR . Here is the threadhttps://www.blackjacktheforum.com/showthread.php?1033-How-to-calculate-Betting-EOR-s-and-Playing-EOR-s Can someone please explain it to me in a manner that an idiot can understand . Maybe this post should be in another section .IDK and there are too many of them!

**stopgambling** · 09-19-2016, 12:37 PM

it is there . i probably did it wrong. . how to calculate EORs and playing EORs . it's in the forum ,thread 1033 . i believe

**LoveBJ** · 09-19-2016, 01:13 PM

That thread is in the PRIVATE forum.

**Three** · 09-19-2016, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by stopgambling

I have read a post made by eric farmer and some response by t3 and alienated , brett harris and ICNT. I was wondering if I understood it correctly in a general level. Is the second set of EOR more " rounded " for the entire deck , therefore using it would result in a less volatile result? Maybe at least for the remaining 2/3 of the shoe. The EOR does not seemed to be a great difference except for the increased value across all tags. It seems to me that would result in more advantage for positive counts and more disadvantages in negative counts when compared to the former EOR . Here is the thread https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-Playing-EOR-s Can someone please explain it to me in a manner that an idiot can understand . Maybe this post should be in another section .IDK and there are too many of them!

This might have fixed the link. add a space before http://.

**Freightman** · 09-19-2016, 02:06 PM

A far more simplistic explanation. Remove 1 card from a single deck and run a huge sim, calculating the difference in result from already established sims on a full deck. If you want, remove an additional card, identical or otherwise, and make the same calculation. I'm sure you get the drift.

Let's assume the top notch simulator is really a top notch mechanic. He makes your deck run nice and smooth. Why worry about what's under the hood. The results are already incorporated into your count. As has been said a thousand times before, execute your count perfectly, and make it hum a whole lot better with more indices.

**Three** · 09-19-2016, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by LoveBJ

That thread is in the PRIVATE forum.

That is where all the good stuff us.

**Three** · 09-19-2016, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Stopgambling

I was wondering if I understood it correctly in a general level. Is the second set of EOR more " rounded " for the entire deck , therefore using it would result in a less volatile result? Maybe at least for the remaining 2/3 of the shoe.

No. The first set are based on full deck EoR's and the second are based on different system to get a more average EoR for any point in the shoe. The result is it is a little less accurate of the top where full deck EoR's would be the most accurate but performs much better where you would be getting a big advantage later in the shoes.

Originally Posted by stopgambling

The EOR does not seemed to be a great difference except for the increased value across all tags. It seems to me that would result in more advantage for positive counts and more disadvantages in negative counts when compared to the former EOR .

The ratio of the EoR's (tag values) are as follows Second EoR's/First EoR's:
2: 2.3558308
3: 2.3380146
4: 2.3140738
5: 2.3181359
6: 2.3135217
7: 2.2775987
8: 2.3824654
9: 2.2949689
T: 2.3249689
A: 2.3169746

The average rank is increased by a factor of 2.323958 from the first set to the second. That is almost exactly what the T is increased by. The largest outlier is the 8 rank in the right tail (0.0585074 more than the mean). The other largest outlier is 7 in the left tail (0.0463593 less than the mean). The next 2 largest outliers are the 2 at 0.0318728 and the 9 at 0.0289891 less than the mean. The next 3 on the right and the median are the 4 T ranks which are barely greater than the mean by 0.0010109. The next 4 on the left heading toward the mean are 6, 4, A, and 5 that are 0.0104363, 0.0098842, 0.0069834, and 0.0058221 less than the mean respectively. The mode and median is the 4 ten value ranks just greater than the mean by 0.0010109. This indicates a left skew around the mean (median and mode to the right of the mean).

Originally Posted by stopgambling

Can someone please explain it to me in a manner that an idiot can understan

Eric used the EoR's as exact count tags to get average advantage for the count and compared it to the actual advantage for the count for 500,000 shoes and put a data point for each penetration in the each shoe to show the range of inaccuracy of the predicted average advantage for each count or set of EoR's. Each data point represents the inaccuracy of the EoR's predicted advantage based on the count's predicted advantage. The Error in the EoR's favored the full deck EoR's in the beginning of the shoe. No surprise there. But for the rest of the shoe the second method was more accurate by a lot relatively speaking. The observation that the EoR's are mostly different by scale showed that the tag values indicated for practical use would not differ by much if at all.

If you look at my analysis of where the difference came from you see that no surprise to Tarzan it was the EoR's of the Hilo's neutral cards. Mostly the 7 and 8 but also the 9 and a likely counted card the 2. This suggests a count of the neutral cards to get a better feel for the actual deck composition could be valuable later in the shoe. Tarzan has been telling us that for at least a decade. What is it he said about them, "the not so neutral neutral-cards".

**stopgambling** · 09-19-2016, 05:18 PM

You somewhat understand my guess of what the original post was about. So ,would it be too far off if i use the EOR of the second set of data after a certain point in the shoe to achieve more accurate play/bet ? Am i wrong? It is a very interesting concept to me with the original post.

**Freightman** · 09-19-2016, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by stopgambling

You somewhat understand my guess of what the original post was about. So ,would it be too far off if i use the EOR of the second set of data after a certain point in the shoe to achieve more accurate play/bet ? Am i wrong? It is a very interesting concept to me with the original post.

Am I correct in assuming that you're talking about a depth based betting ramp?

**stopgambling** · 09-19-2016, 05:34 PM

I just looked at it closer . it does not seem to offer practical gain. am I missing something?

**Three** · 09-19-2016, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by stopgambling

You somewhat understand my guess of what the original post was about. So ,would it be too far off if i use the EOR of the second set of data after a certain point in the shoe to achieve more accurate play/bet ? Am i wrong? It is a very interesting concept to me with the original post.

You are wrong. The difference between the EoR's is not enough to change any tags that anyone would consider using. For all practical purposes they are the same. In other words using one set will have you using the exact same count as the other. The counts used are literally level quadrillion counts. That is even too complex for me.

Originally Posted by stopgambling

I just looked at it closer . it does not seem to offer practical gain. am I missing something?

Exactly.