Norm. When you played RPC single deck, if the deck was more rich in 8,9s rhan 10s was that a concern to you? If not, why? If so, how did you compensate or adjust?
Sidecount 9's
1. In high TC situations to cater to the 12v2 dealer situations to bypass index of standing at TC 3 and higher when 9's are in surplus, keeping in mind that 9's have a value at halves.
2. Adjusting insurance index both up and down when 9's are in deficit or surplus.
As valuable as 1 above was, when it happened, it was to infrequent an occurrence. There are better side counts to consider.
8 has a 0 value at halves. That being said, and with my immediate answer above, there sure is lots of merit to to a group count of intermediates. Kinda sorta fits with a few theories floating around, including those affecting your column count - which by the way has an effect on insurance correlation as well as other play decisions.
Last edited by Freightman; 05-04-2017 at 05:54 PM. Reason: Add last thought.
RoadWarrior, might your proposal work? Sure, perhaps with a large enough spread where almost all of your betting takes place at extremely high counts where these plays are proper deviation. Is it practical? No. I'm not running a sim to come to about the same conclusion.
Bookmarks