Freightman,
I've been reading these boards for a year or two, and you are probably the rudest poster here.
And I never said he wasn't intelligent. However, I am definitely questioning his repeated claims that "the average person" like his "lady friend" can easily and quickly learn to keep an accurate main count along with multiple side counts.
Subtle and funny. And now for something completely differentOriginally Posted by BoSox
https://youtu.be/4JgbOkLdRaE
Only 11 more to go.
That’s being aggravating, not necessarily an idiot. Pay attention to some of my posts this afternoon, and maybe, just maybe therein lies the answer.
Besides, who the hell are you to judge him. You could be right, but then again.................
The Donald, once again, is surprised by such revelation. "No Shit" would possibly make the point more succinct.
No shit.
Didn't you just commission a simulation via Gronbog that demonstrated that your CC idea is poorly correlated with expectation? And you still want to venture into CC land? What is the Einsteinian definition of Insanity again?So my goal is to concentrate on continuing to improve the CC of as many I18 situation as possible as adding additional improvements beyond the I18 has minimal effects and can be looked at another time after I get the bulk of the improvement done.
Adding another level of complexity to your already complex system?So what I asked Gronbog if he could do one more simulation by adding a second side count, 5m6c, to HL with AA78mTc. The reason I chose 5m6c is that if helps with hard 16 v T hit/stand decision (the most important decision after insurance), many other decisions and also helps with betting.
Gronbog did not use LS. So using EoR without NO LS (also included as an attached file) and DAS, S17, it turns out that HO - 2*(Adef) has a higher BC (Betting Correlation).
Betting Correlation (BC) for S17, DAS, no LS
HO2 –2*(Adef) 98.45%
HL +(1/3)*(5m6c) 97.38%
HL 96.48%
By adding (1/3)*(5m6c) to HL to get brc = HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) the HL BC(Betting Correlation) is increased around 1% which puts it closer to HO2 – 2*(Adef) but is still1% below HO2 – 2*(Adef).
So adding 5m6c not only helps with hard 16 v T and many other I18 situations, it also helps with betting which is another reason that HO2 with ASC beat HL with AA78mTc as AA78mTc did not add anything to HL betting correlation.
Look, your system is getting to the point where using HOII w/ ASC is the simpler of the choices and still has the edge over your system! Period!
I can assure you that adding the 5v6 side count will not improve your system close to that of HOII!As an aside, one user asked me why my KO BC was 96.5% and his program had 97+%. I told him that I was using S17, DAS, LS and BC depend on the rules which change the EoR which is what BC is used against. When S17, DAS, no LS is used for KO the BC is over 97% which agrees with that that user showed me. His program must have used NO Late Surrender when calculating KO betting efficiency. The BC charts for S17, DAS, no LS (which is what Gronbog simulated) are included in the attached files.
So if Gronbog can do this last sim adding 5m6c to help with betting and for the five strategy changes I outlined in my attached files, I think you will see that finally HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c should approach HO2 with ASC - I am not going to say that HL with AA78mTc and 5m6c will surpass HO2 with ASC as I got burnt before saying that HL with AA78mTc would surpass HO2 with ASC. Note that I asked Gronbog to include hit/stand hard 16 v 7 and hard 16 v 8 in addition to the I18 changes when 5m6c is added to HL with AA78mTc. I asked to included these two extra changes, even though they are outside of the I18, because 5m6c helps a lot with these changes and theses hit/stand hard 16 v 7 and hard 16 v 8 does occur frequently.
Looking at Griffin in ToBJ, the table for gains in expectation for perfect play (n_cards = 20):
16 vs 7: 20/1000
16 vs 8: 15/1000
Assuming you can perfectly play 16 vs 8 and 9 your gain in play is going to be minimal.
My recommendation(s):
1.) Stick to your preffered single-parameter system (High Low or KO)
2.) If wanting to go higher level: HOII w/ASC && 7SC for 1D/2D games, Halves for 6/8 D games, and Zen with ASC for both pitch deck and multi-deck games.
3.) If you still want to develop your own system: consider looking at ToBJ again (specifically the "average gains for varying basic strategy", and BJA's EoR tables) to develop a much more robust system than what you have right now. Use Tarzan's DHM system as an example of simple, yet complex. "Think Skinny" is what should come to mind. Keep in mind most of your gains from playing comes from:
Insurance
12-6 vs T
13 vs 2-6
12 vs 2-6
TT vs 4-6
Find a common "key card" for each play and you are on your way to making a system much more simpler that others are willing to buy into.
Also, try to clean up your math a little bit. Writing thing in coded symbols may be what mathematicians do, but many lay people are turned off from the verboisity. It also helps out us other math-types when reading your expressions. Especially when expressing Expectations!
6vT is only important because BS has it so very wrong for the counter. Every increased bet is played wrong. If you alter the play to always stand, then the deviation of hitting in negative counts isn't worth much, especially if you avoid the negative counts like you should be doing. In that case deviating from CBS and hitting is worth almost nothing.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks