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": )
Code:
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
Bookmarks