Which group of indices would you choose?

**seriousplayer** · 09-23-2016, 09:58 PM

I have been doing simulations on comparing different indices with the same count. I did a simulation with 70 indices and then compare the SCORE of that system to the same count with over +150 indices. I found the two comparison to be very close in SCORE but the count with +150 has a lower N0. A difference of .17 to .48 in SCORE. If you are playing a six deck S17, DAS, LS game out of two groups of indices which one would you choose? The count system is the same. The amount of indices are different.

Did I make a wise decision to choose to use the group with least amount of indices?

**Phoebe** · 09-23-2016, 10:14 PM

A question to Norm. Would not be Speed Count whith 150 indices better than REKO ? I hesitate.

**Phoebe** · 09-23-2016, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by seriousplayer

... A difference of .17 to .48 in SCORE...

Watch last column in bottom line of CVCX and you will have your answer.

**seriousplayer** · 09-23-2016, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Philippe B

A question to Norm. Would not be Speed Count whith 150 indices better than REKO ? I hesitate.

I am comparing the same count system to each other. For example, Hi-lo with 70 indices to Hi-lo with +150 Indices. What does the last column in the bottom line of CVCX tell me?

**Phoebe** · 09-23-2016, 10:43 PM

I hoped you had found by yourself.
It's Standard Error on SCORE and is near from difference between SCORE. It prove that a such difference don't matter.

For instance. I am 50 years old +/-30 years. What's value of this information ?

**DSchles** · 09-25-2016, 08:38 AM

"I have been doing simulations on comparing different indices with the same count. I did a simulation with 70 indices and then compared the SCORE of that system to the same count with over +150 indices."

Did you use exactly the same bets for both? You can't, because if the more indices confer a greater advantage, then you're permitted to bet more per TC with the 150. But, as you mention, the difference is probably negligible. Just pointing out the correct methodology.

"I found the two comparisons to be very close in SCORE"

No! These aren't SCOREs, if you weren't betting optimally. These are hourly win rates, so you may not have done the comparison properly.

"but the count with +150 has a lower N0. A difference of .17 to .48 in SCORE."

SCORE and N0 are, basically, the same thing. One is the reciprocal of the other, multiplied by a factor of one million. So, whatever statement you make about one, it's the same statement for the other, relatively speaking.

"If you are playing a six deck S17, DAS, LS game out of two groups of indices which one would you choose?"

As you have found out, knowing the extra 80 indices adds virtually nothing to your expectation. But, neither do they do any harm! So, if you can learn all 150 and play perfectly, then use the 150. If you can't, and you make mistakes, then stay with the 70, confident that not knowing the other 80 doesn't make any real difference at all.

"The count system is the same. The amount of indices are different. Did I make a wise decision to choose to use the group with least amount of indices?"

No one can answer that for you. See above. Many people use only 18 indices, or 22, and are perfectly happy, knowing they are getting the bulk of the advantage attainable. Your choice.

Don

**seriousplayer** · 09-25-2016, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by DSchles

"I have been doing simulations on comparing different indices with the same count. I did a simulation with 70 indices and then compared the SCORE of that system to the same count with over +150 indices."

Did you use exactly the same bets for both? You can't, because if the more indices confer a greater advantage, then you're permitted to bet more per TC with the 150. But, as you mention, the difference is probably negligible. Just pointing out the correct methodology.

They are not the same sets of indices for both comparison my intention to increase SCORE and reduce variance. Sometime using more indices will increase variance for a system. If I could use less indices and give up very minimal SCORE than I might choose to go with less indices.

**Phoebe** · 09-25-2016, 08:57 AM

What makes you say that he weren't betting optimally ?
Even if he use CVData, I hope he launch CVCX.

**greg16394** · 09-25-2016, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by seriousplayer

They are not the same sets of indices for both comparison my intention to increase SCORE and reduce variance. Sometime using more indices will increase variance for a system.

If someone could increase SCORE and reduce variance in 'ANY' way, it would be perfect.
How could we do that ? Don S mentioned in other thread that no one can affect on the game results.
Don, Is there any way to decrease variance ?

**DSchles** · 09-25-2016, 07:03 PM

"Don, Is there any way to decrease variance ?"

Look for surrender.

Don

**greg16394** · 09-25-2016, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

"Don, Is there any way to decrease variance ?"

Look for surrender.

Don

Thanks,
Then is there any way to make bell curve tighter, not 2sd, 3sd as T3 keeps saying ?

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 09-26-2016, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by greg16394

"make bell curve tighter, not 2sd, 3sd as T3 keeps saying ?"

Use a strong count e.g. Hi-Opt II with Side Counted Aces (and 7's in a DD game) and
limit yourself to very good table conditions, using an optimal bet spread narrowed to
the point where your e.v. is only satisfactory, not greedy.

That is my 'non-mathematical' and easily comprehended reply.