Indices and their importance to your winning/variance

[Norm]

Moses, read more and post less until you have a wider view. It will help your understanding. Your questions show basic misunderstandings.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I dug deep, I mean really deep into CV Data.

Do not be hyperbolic. It is defensive, not flattering.

What you call "deep" is statistically shallow.

You may have a good shovel for your digging,

(with Norm's software) ...

but a prospector needs to know a bit of geology

and a bit of cartography before setting out.

A lucky prospector might find gold while searching

for diamonds. Lucky guy. As we used to say in N.Y.

"He stepped in it."

I am thinking that you are inherently semi-innumerate

as nearly all people are.

Hence, the techno-trope: Garbage In / Garbage Out.

[Three]

So much confusion in this thread. Suppose you play with no indices at all, and just bet variation. Suppose your SCORE is, say, 40. Now, suppose, instead, you add the I18. And now, suppose your SCORE jumps to 50. So, 80% of your SCORE of 50 is due to bet variation, while 20% is due to adding the I18. Now, suppose you add all the rest of the indices in the world to the I18. The claim is that the SCORE of 50 will increase by about another 10%, to, roughly 55.

So now, what is the percentage breakdown? On a best-attainable SCORE of 55, 40/55 = 72.7% is due to bet variation. Another 10/55 = 18.2% is due to using the I18. And the last 5/55 = 9.1% is due to using the remainder of the indices.

CLEAR?????

Don

First off I came to realize that you can't accurately separate betting and playing. Your optimal ramp will depend on how many indices you use so as you add indices you also bet more. The gain from more indices is not just the gain from index play but the total gain from index play and and the increased bets.

This is the quote that started the debate on the gain.

I think I recall that it's basically the "80/20" rule:

80% of your return from card counting comes from betting variation and 20% from playing deviations. And then 80% of your playing deviations will fall within the I18. So going beyond the I18 and learning most or all of the indexes may be worth up to another 4%?

So what we are debating is how much more are the rest of the indices worth over just the gain from the I18. If we used Don's numbers, which may have been pulled out of thin air, SCORE increases by 10 for the I18 over no indices and by 15 for all indices as determined by simulation. That means the 2/3rd (10/15) of the gain from all index play is from the I18 and 1/3rd from the rest of the indices ((15-10)/15). Actually that is what Don's percentages break down to. Don, did you just pull some numbers out of thin air as your post seems to imply?

It would be interesting to do this for Hilo and a high PE count like Hiopt2/ASC. It would give you an idea of what indices are worth in relation to a counts playing strength and how much more powerful indices are with a count that has strong index decisions. If this debate is to be made it should be thorough and consider various playing strength counts for the percentage of gain from indices in terms of SCORE and c-SCORE for larger spreads than SCORE uses. I have never seen this qualified in any comprehensive for for various counts. Hilo would be a great ace reckoned count, Halves for an ace compromise count, and Hiopt2/ASC for an ace neutral count. Compare SCORE as well as c-SCORE for 1-16 and 1-20 spreads with 4.5/6 decks and H17, DAS; H17, DAS, LS; S17,DAS; and S17,DAS, LS.

[Bodarc]

That would be interesting TThree. Let us know the results when you finish if you don't mind.

[Three]

We have a couple resident sim experts. Don said he doesn't trust sims except if they are done by DogHand or Gronbog. Perhaps one of them would be interested enough to do it.

[BoSox]

First off I came to realize that you can't accurately separate betting and playing. Your optimal ramp will depend on how many indices you use so as you add indices you also bet more. The gain from more indices is not just the gain from index play but the total gain from index play and and the increased bets.

The quote is incorrect. If you learned an extra 25 negative number index plays as an example why on earth would you be raising your bet? You did not say which index plays you add. Also when you reach a strike point for a deviation change the difference in edge gain is very slight.

[Three]

The quote is incorrect. If you learned an extra 25 negative number index plays as an example why on earth would you be raising your bet?

Because your optimal bets increased.

[Phoebe]

Optimal bets, yes.
But does practical ramp change so much ?
http://pokermenteur.free.fr/images/IL18.gif

Even optimal bets ramps (Yes, CE/WR=0.50 ).
http://pokermenteur.free.fr/images/IL18a.gif

[BoSox]

Originally Posted by BoSox
"The quote is incorrect. If you learned an extra 25 negative number index plays as an example why on earth would you be raising your bet?"

Tthree wrote:
"Because your optimal bets increased.

"

Tthree I find your response preposterous, frankly my head is spinning. Personally I increase, and lower my bets based strictly on the true count, not on how many index plays I know. Speaking of index plays it is my opinion that players should avoid playing as many negative counts as humanly possible, where the optimal bet is $ 0.00.

[Freightman]

"

Tthree I find your response preposterous, frankly my head is spinning. Personally I increase, and lower my bets based strictly on the true count, not on how many index plays I know. Speaking of index plays it is my opinion that players should avoid playing as many negative counts as humanly possible, where the optimal bet is $ 0.00.

Actually, it kinda sorta makes sense, while you also make sense. I think it's just a matter if deciphering where everyone is coming from.

3 is saying that that addl indices raises (slightly) win rates, which increases bankroll, which allows resize of bets - that the compounding effect of the additional indices, though initially slight, has more impact over a period time. Very much like your money in the marketplace. Youre saying what is tried and true - betting differentials in relation to your advantage or disadvantage. I'll muddy the waters a bit, for fun. Consider dual betting ramps within the same shoe. This could mean raising your bets in a declining count. Interesting implications.

[Norm]

Tthree I find your response preposterous, frankly my head is spinning.

Overstated. But not preposterous.

Personally I increase, and lower my bets based strictly on the true count

That's not contradictory to what T3 said.

[BoSox]

" Originally Posted by TthreeFirst off I came to realize that you can't accurately separate betting and playing. Your optimal ramp will depend on how many indices you use so as you add indices you also bet more. The gain from more indices is not just the gain from index play but the total gain from index play and and the increased bets."

Sorry Norm I have to respectfully disagree with you. With all the new players on this site, it is statements like the above one that could easily be misinterpreted costing the new player big losses.

[Norm]

Well Bosox, then it sounds like you are also disagreeing with the concept of optimal betting. Albeit, I still think it's overstated.