Excellent thought processes outside of the box. While at it, suggest a split instead, snagging the ace and then doubling, repeating the process for hand 2. The point is, that you can develop an index or play for anything, ridiculously prudent when the proper conditions present themselves.Originally Posted by dogman_1234
Further, I welcome theoretical ideas and suggestions in pursuit of improving the now regaled FBM ASC.
I just presented my findings. If you do not believe me then stick with what you have. I am not going to try to convert anyone. You make your own decisions.
I have done everyhting short of DIRECT simulations but I sort of did INDIRECT simulations in that my program I used to calculated indices I used for HL indices and every HL index that I tested, the resulting indices from my program using EoR, agreed with the published HL from simulations.
Also I showed you weighted average CC for various counts and you can see that if you arrange the counts by weighed average CC that the counts with the highest weighted Average CC also are the counts that have been determined to have the strongest playing strategy according to simulations.
So I am not just using common sense. I used Effects of Removal from Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition, that were calculated to six significant figures and Don explains in his book how important EoR are and how to use them.
So I have tested my results through indirect simulation of calculated HL indices using EoR agreeing with published indices for the HL and that the order of strength of various counts using the Weighted Average CC agrees with simulation order of strength for the various counts and I used Schlesinger's proven EoR for my calculations.
So I have done everything short of direct simulations of my results. And I also showed the value of camouflage play using AA78mTc with HL.
That is all I have to say. If you don't believe me then keep on using what you have. I am not twisting anyone's arm to believe me and I do not have simulation software to do a direct simulation to prove my results.
I do keep an open mind on many topics. I also lack patience in the nanner of certain presented scenarios. That being said, this is the type of theoretical discussion that I would prefer over a long afternoon, with a notepad and pastry.
Just because I’m not particularly interested at this time, does not mean that I won’t be at a future time, or that I don’t see potential merit to your ideas.
Hence, why the relevance of actually providing a monte carlo sim data-sheet would be beneficial!
I would *highly* recommend that the OP (bjanalyst) obtain the CV suite sim from our site host. Could help you expand into other ideas as well. No need to program. Just plug and chug.
I do play with both cvdata and cvcx. Even our resident master, Dog Hand, would not be able to sim my exact game. Shortcuts and assumptions would need to be made, which would throw off the actuals. That being said, I’m happy with my results and the avoidance of ridiculous debate, such as this, that would ensue if I were to promulgate my theories.
A well respected poster on this board did suggest to me a method by which I could sim. His commentary was based on tracking performance in a team environment. My preference is to do my own thing as a solo artist, and thus, I did not incorporate the suggestions.
Not at all. What you need to learn is that sims are not the end all be all. Software can’t be programmed to anticipate every single nuance. My game has developed over many years, and it will continue to evolve. I do sim as best I can, consistently exceeding those erroneous projections.
It’s pretty clear to me that I have evoked your wrath. Suggest you concentrate your energies eksewhere, and preserve your sanity.
Hahaha. I know where you are coming from Freighter. A lot of what I do have yet to be incorporated in full system simulations. I know the results would improve a lot. I just sim what I can and know I should well outperform the errant underproduction from the limited sims. I like it that way. Having results underperform the sim is a lot less likely.
I just want to make it clear that the simulations were requested by another user on this thread. The simulations were not my idea. It would be nice to have verification with simulations but I already KNOW my calculations are correct.
I have been using them for over four years now and they work great. I use KO with AA89mTc.
It should be noted that Tc = Ten Count = LLc = Lucky Ladies count = KO + AA89mTc = Noir count which has been well documented in the literature for decades as a PERFECT Ten count with an unbalance of 4 per deck and that the Noir count gives a perfect insurance decision when Noir = KO + AA89mTc >= 4*n where n = number of decks. The Noir count counts all non-Tens as +1 and all Tens as -2.
I have been using this Tc for insurance, Lucky Ladies betting, hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 decisions and more for over 4 years now and they work great.
Besides my Least Squares Line (LSL) calculations based on Schlesinger's EoR I have also calculated indices using Griffins PD (Proportional Deflection) technique and the results matched EXACTLY.
I have used my LSL technique to calculate indices for the HL count which match the published HL indices. I have tested dozens of indices and have not found a single incident where the HL indices calculated from my LSL program did not match published HL indices derived through simulations.
I have calculated Weighted Average CC (tag values of counts and EoR) for various published counts weighing around 30 playing strategy decisions and then sorted them by increasing weighted average CC and the results showed the counts with the highest weighted average CC were also the counts that were deemed strongest by simulations. I included a chart of the various counts I tested in an earlier thread so you can see for yourself.
So my calculations have passed every single tests that I have thrown at them and I have also used it successfully for over four years now.
As explained earlier, I have used Don Schlesinger's EoR published in Blackjack Attack 3rd edition which EoR have five significant figures and so are very accurate.
So while it would be nice is someone ran the simulations (suggesting by another user who would not believe my calculations were correct without simulations) it is not really necessary because as I said from the start, I know my calculations are correct.
If someone can run the requested simulations then great as I a positive that those results will once again prove that my calculations are correct.
And I will predict here, based on weighted average CC of HL + k*(AA78mTc) and Hi Opt 2 with side count of Aces being almost equal, that you will find, if all HL + k*(AA78mTc) indices were used, that the HL + k*(AA78mTc) was just as strong as the Hi Opt 2 with a side count of Aces.
Because I have suggested only using the strongest AA78mTc strategy changes (insurance and hit/stand hard 12 v 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and have left out all other strategy changes with AA78mTc and using just HL for all other strategy changes, then I predict simulations will show HL with AA78mTc is almost as strong as Hi Opt 2 with side count of Ace but just a little weaker because not all help available for HL strategy changes with AA78mTc were taken into account.
My calculations have passed every test that I have thrown at them. I know that my calculations are correct.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-23-2018 at 06:13 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks