More progress on SCORE for optimal play

[Three]

I didn't say anything about not respecting him. It's just another Pleasant Valley Sunday where confusion abounds with yet another Hi Opt ii vs HiLo thread.

What delusional state are you in. This thread has nothing to do with comparing counts. It is about the cellar and cielling that exist. TDZ is the absolute cellar. Hilo is the most commonly used count in a family of level 1 ace reckoned counts that perform about the same. Hiopt2/ASC is the top performing count. Various sets of indices selected include perfect CDA play. Perfect betting put in. This is probably the most informative thread on what can be gained for any count and makes no attempt to compare counts. Choices were made to illustrate various ceilings and bottoms and questions were asked and answers were attempted. No attempt to belittle or praise any counts occurred. Only analysis of the importance of Playing accuracy and Betting accuracy.

The ill 18? Who splits tens at every index call and is still allowed to play?

I can't say I always notice when it is called for or use it in every casino, but of the times I notice the index is exceeded I split T,T well over 50% of the time and never caught any heat for it. I guess it depends on your act and how good your relationship is with the casino. There are places I play that I would never consider such a play but most others they could care less. At least the way I do it. One or 2 places I don't even take insurance and that is a huge hit to EV. Needless to say the games are over the top great and it was obvious in just a short time what got the pit buzzing. There is one rule: Everything varies by casino so there are no rules.

[ericfarmer]

This is a good point. As Tthree points out, the only "new" entries in the tables presented here are those for optimal play. I only included the others (fixed/basic total-dependent strategy, Hi-Lo, Hi-Opt II, etc.) for two reasons:

First, including fixed/basic TDZ establishes a "baseline" of *lowest* reasonable performance, which with the optimal performance at the other end, gives us a normalizing yardstick between which we can evaluate any other strategy. (This is something I tried to do back in 2013 as described here, where in that case I focused solely on *playing* efficiency, basically since betting efficiency was beyond the capability of my CA at the time. This is something that Don asked about regarding this latest analysis, so following is a table of flat-bet EV for each strategy, as well as a corresponding conversion to what I have proposed is a "better PE": )

Strategy         |   E[X]   |  PE
===================================
TDZ              | -0.4655% | 0.000
Hi-Lo I18 (Cac)  | -0.4080% | 0.292
Hi-Lo I18 (BJA3) | -0.4001% | 0.333
Hi-Lo full       | -0.3792% | 0.439
Hi-Opt II full   | -0.3413% | 0.632
Optimal          | -0.2688% | 1.000

Something I forgot to mention with this note. These flat-betting EVs highlight an interesting-- and surprising to me at least-- observation also made back in 2013, that still holds true after including insurance (which the earlier analysis didn't): perfect *play* alone isn't enough to win. That is, if you can't vary your bet, even with a laptop at the table you still have negative expected return.

It is an interesting additional question whether there are dials that we can turn to improve this situation. For example, penetration alone doesn't help; although the data presented here is for 4.5/6.0, I generated data out to 5.0/6.0, and optimal flat-betting EV is still -0.1883%. And my earlier analysis was for SPL3, which also didn't help. But perhaps surrender might be enough to tip the scales back in the player's favor?

[NotEnoughHeat]

What delusional state are you in.

You could leave that out next time. This friction between you two bothers me quite a bit. You're both valuable posters. I don't remember such antagonism between you two before my most recent hiatus from the forum.

Eric's Sims are more informative than CV Data because?

These aren't sims. They're combinatoral analyses a.k.a. purely mathematical calculations. The point of this recent project (see the previous thread linked in the OP) is to understand the upper limit of what's possible to achieve (theoretically) via counting. It's not to compare already existing counts more effectively or to provide more accurate numbers than simulation. The different counts are posted to see how they each independently compare to optimal counting.

[Three]

Split 10s 50% of the time at index with no heat. OMG, I've got to stop or I'm going bust a spring.

You play SD I play shoe. They are 2 entirely different animals.

Delusional? Post 1,4,5,7,10,11,13,15,19,28.

All these posts present facts or introduce new facts. Nobody was critical of anything. People that see it that way are prejudiced and have their prejudice color their judgement. Most didn't even mention Hilo and Hiopt2 in the same post. Seeing anything Eric posted as being count debate related is ridiculous. Apparently you think any study into BJ is about the count debate. The truth is there is no count debate. Nobody argues about facts because they are well established. They argue about what their opinion is. Those that think it is a debate just want everyone to agree with them. There is no one right answer to the "debate" because the right answer varies by individual. Since that is the case there is really no debate. It is all about personal preference. If people talk about what color to paint their house do you call it a debate when different people want to paint their houses different colors or plant different plants on their property? It is the same thing. Barns tend to be red because it is the cheapest paint and painting a barn takes a lot of paint. From a cost point of view all barns should be red but some don't make their decision based on cost. That doesn't mean they are wrong because they would rather spend a few extra cents so they can look at a different colored barn. It means for them a blue barn is right and for someone else another color.

[NotEnoughHeat]

From post #1

I have updated my CA software

lol. Not going to break your balls. It's easy to miss details in a very long post.

[Three]

Nothing stated this was combatorial analysis. The charts looked like someone using their own SIM. SCORE was listed for HiLo and Hi Opt 2 in several different categories. Again, other viable options were not included. I know, I know HiLo is the most popular and you and Flash want to "Change the World" Eric Clapton.

You missed the point. The post was about the value of playing decisions while counting and ramping. It listed the best basic using Hilo, two versions of Hilo I18 and Hilo, full indices Hilo, Hiopt2/ASC full indices with 2 different RoR's, and perfect playing decisions using CDA. The same was done for betting later in the thread. The purpose was not to compare counts and you would be stretching things to find more than one post that tried to compare counts in this thread. I don't try to change anyone because they have no access to what I do. I often say the right answer depends on the person and advise certain people to stick with Hilo because I think it is their best fit count. You conveniently forget these things to make up your own reality. My opinion is complexity can be worth it for some individuals. I don't try to hide it. I feel I am one such individual. I also feel complexity is a mistake for other individuals and tell people that want my opinion when I think they fall in that category but each person knows themselves better than I could ever know them and they should be honest about their strengths and weaknesses, what is best for the games they target, what additional techniques they plan on mastering and choose a count based on these factors as their best fit count.

[Three]

Didn't "miss" the point so much as not seeing a point in the first place.

What? Isn't that the exact definition of missing the point? It seems you just want to troll and argue. Oh vey!!!

[Bubbles]

RE: Hi-Opt II (Insurance)

I think that I am confused here, as I am having trouble
downloading the data files.
I could hardly help but notice Insurance Index of +6.
I have used +5 for many years. Commentary please.

I too use +5 for insurance. I got it from doing a sim.

[Gronbog]

I could hardly help but notice Insurance Index of +6.
I have used +5 for many years. Commentary please.

I'll lean on Norm and Gronbog for help here? My understanding is that CVData guidance is +6, so that's what I used.

Yes, I advised Eric to use +6 based on the tables included with CVData.

[Gronbog]

These aren't sims. They're combinatoral analyses a.k.a. purely mathematical calculations.

It's actually a simulator with a CA embedded in it for making the optimal betting and playing decisions.

[Frank Galvin]

What? Isn't that the exact definition of missing the point? It seems you just want to troll and argue. Oh vey!!!

Tthree, please leave yiddish to the yids, and I'll leave bombastic posts to the bombastic. Deal?

[Bubbles]

Feh, if English never stole words it would be a very sad language.

[Three]

Tthree, please leave yiddish to the yids, and I'll leave bombastic posts to the bombastic. Deal?

You don't know my history. Don't assume you do. You know what they say happens when you assume. I can see I have many adversaries here despite having helped almost all of them privately. Lesson learned.