Perhaps you can use a better example next time.Originally Posted by Tthree
It was not my example and the example was explained to be taking things to absurd extremes so things would become more clear. If you had tried to understand what was written rather than read what was written trying to find something to argue about the example would have been fine. It exactly illustrated the relationship that shapes the importance of PE as compared to the importance of BC. To make it easier to understand if you flat bet BC has no importance at all.
I never said PE is king for shoe games. You just keep saying it. From a sim standpoint PE is second to BC by about 2:1 in shoe games and the numbers reverse in pitch games but as you know the sim results don't necessarily translate to what you can get away with in the casinos. I just want to get the best performance out of all aspects of my play. I see no reason to compromise. Whether the compromise is BC for PE or vice versa or EV for longevity. Most people use counts that make big compromises. Some of my biggest innovations came from trying to figure out ways to avoid compromises. Others from trying to figure out how to increase accuracy. As is often the case innovations interact to make something amazing.
Yes, because some of the post that I have been reading lately has been absurd. I am trying to understand the post. From what I learned is you can't beat shoe with a 2-1 bet spread if you play all with full indices. As you said PE is never the king in shoe games. With a low bet spread with playing deviation itself you can't beat shoe games. I understand the importance of PE in double deck and single deck games.
Do you? The importance is higher primarily because you can't get away with as much of a spread in pitch games. If you could BC would be more important. That was what Flash's example was supposed to show you. If you understood the primary reason why PE is more important in pitch games you would already understand his point and would be agreeing with him.
You do realize you aren't using playall correctly. The term has nothing to do with how many indices you use. It has to do with wonging. Play-all means you don't wong out. You play all the rounds until the cut card. What you mean to say is full indices or shortened to simply "full". Learning more indices is the easiest thing an AP can do. Even the rankest beginner can learn a few indices a day and know full indices before he is ready to count cards. You just need to learn them once and they will improve EV and other stats forever. You are damn right I am an advocate of full indices or at least a lot more than the I18/fab4. By the time you include the top 50 or 60 indices the rest don't have much but they are easily learned at almost no effort and often using really unusual indices makes you look like an idiot especially if your bet size is not indicative of the playing count. You don't have to do a playing deviation if you think it is unwise.
One if my first backoffs was at a joint where I was known as a solid player. A real crappy shoe came up, and I was making a number of outrageous index plays, making out like a bandit. My next appearance at said store - never got to play a hand.
Some variants I play I use something like 400 to 500 indices. The index advantage gets me most of what I get because it interacts with the unique way I use the extra information I gather. And once again the term play all doesn't refer to the number of indices you use. Your mixing terminology is just going to confuse people, especially beginners. The non confusing term is "you use full indices". Full indices as I use the term is a little over 100 indices for Hiopt2. Now how about answering the question in post # 51 before you confuse people further. Experienced players already know the answer but you could be leading beginners to the slaughter with misinformation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks