BJA Floating Advantage question.

[Dog Hand]

Don,

Here's a suggestion: just add the overall penetration to each figure title. For example, using the two tables from San Jose Bella's original post, use these titles:

TABLE 6.17A
.00 to 4.50 of 5.00 decks

TABLE 6.21A
.00 to 4.50 of 5.50 decks

This would be a simple change, but would save readers from comparing these two tables and wondering, "What's the difference?"

Dog Hand

[Three]

Don, if you want suggestions to present things in a more reader friendly way for future printings I can make a few, but if not I won't bother. It would be a moot point and a waste of everyone's time. But the one that is a minimal change and doesn't change the charts at all gives more information about how the charts are grouped among the charts and a line or other demarcation separating the chart groups. Like, "Table 6.12 gives the summary for the full pack from 0 to 4.50 decks, followed by tables 6.13 to 6.15 giving the hand expectation for flat betting in different segments, followed by tables 6.13A to 6.15A which give the hand expectation for ramping bets in different segments". Then a line of demarcation to separate the next group. Then repeat for the next summary, etc.

I will withhold my other suggestions pending your response for suggestions. I think the one listed above may be the best as it is such a simple change to what exists already.

[DSchles]

Don, if you want suggestions to present things in a more reader friendly way for future printings I can make a few, but if not I won't bother. It would be a moot point and a waste of everyone's time. But the one that is a minimal change and doesn't change the charts at all gives more information about how the charts are grouped among the charts and a line or other demarcation separating the chart groups. Like, "Table 6.12 gives the summary for the full pack from 0 to 4.50 decks, followed by tables 6.13 to 6.15 giving the hand expectation for flat betting in different segments, followed by tables 6.13A to 6.15A which give the hand expectation for ramping bets in different segments". Then a line of demarcation to separate the next group. Then repeat for the next summary, etc.

I will withhold my other suggestions pending your response for suggestions. I think the one listed above may be the best as it is such a simple change to what exists already.

Thanks to both of you. As the book was just reprinted, let's hold off until the time rolls around again for what would be any substantive changes. I'm hoping not to do things that will change all the page numbers from that point forward, which then impacts the ToC, index, etc. But I think we can make this clearer without affecting the pages.

Thanks again.

Don

[San Jose Bella]

San Jose Bella,

Ahh... sorry for the confusion! I thought you were asking why Column 7 differed from Column 8 in each table. Instead, you want to know why Column 7 (and Column 8) is not exactly the same for each table.

The explanation is given on page 82: Column 7 equals Column 3 divided by Total Hands.

Table 6.17A is a segment of a simulation whose penetration is 5.00/6. As shown on the Summary Table 6.16 (page 86), for this penetration the Total Hands played is 436,923,359. Thus, the Per Hand Contr. for, say, the first row is found to be

100%*(-2,320,393.0)/(436,923,359) = -0.53108...

Table 6.21A is a segment of a simulation whose penetration is 5.50/6. As shown on the Summary Table 6.20 (page 87), for this penetration the Total Hands played is 480,070,015. Thus, the Per Hand Contr. for, say, the first row is found to be

100%*(-2,320,393.0)/(480,070,015) = -0.48334...

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Thanks Dog Hand! your explanation is ultra clear. It's clearly written on page 81:
100 times column 3 divided by the total number of hands played (throughout the deck for all true counts).
The book has no problem at all.

Three, see page 81 rather than 82, I'm a slow English reader, forgot that sentence when I reached the chart pages.

[San Jose Bella]

Normally, player advantage increases as more decks played out.
I found another abnormality confusing. On page 87 of BJA3, notice the Table 6.19A, Per Hand Expect. for TC 3&4(1.26&1.73) decreased comparing to Table 6.18A. How is this happening?

???? PACM00 ?? Tapatalk??

[DSchles]

Probably just a standard error anomaly. Differences are 0.09 and 0.15, respectively, but sums of the standard errors are both 0.20.

Don

[San Jose Bella]

Probably just a standard error anomaly. Differences are 0.09 and 0.15, respectively, but sums of the standard errors are both 0.20.

Don

that makes sense, thanks.

???? PACM00 ?? Tapatalk??