S. Wong A2 v 5

[DSchles]

The theoretical lost opportunity of not doubling at index is compensated by RA reduced variance, allowing in theory higher max bets, thus increasing profits.

Not quite. There's no reason to think that the variance decreases very much. You're still doubling your bet, and whether you win or lose, the average squared result, from betting twice as much, really doesn't change much, although it does a little because calculation of the variance involves subtracting the square of the average result (mean), which is positive, rather than almost zero. What changes more is the numerator, namely, the expectation. So SCORE increases because the numerator increases while the denominator remains more or less the same.

Don

[Norm]

Yeah. Risk aversion is really a poor label. The concept is to increase win rate. And, it really isn't a sort of fuzzy idea about what might work well. It is a mathematical principle. And, EoR's are essentially useless in the creation of these indices. No, completely useless.

[bjanalyst]

You cannot calculate indices mathematically to two decimals, and results expressed to more decimals at which they are accurate are wrong. And what penetration are you talking about with such exact numbers?

I use my LSL analysis with EoR to get the indices for one, two, six, eight and infinite decks. Maybe expressing to two decimal places was a bit of a stretch but my LSL analysis and CC has proven to work phenomenally well and have passed every test thrown at it including verification by multiple simulations. And yes, you are correct when you state linearity is assumed in my analysis so you are correct with that so perhaps precision to two decimal places is unwarranted.

[bjanalyst]

EoR's are essentially useless in the creation of these indices. No, completely useless.

When Gronbog was analyzing HL w 7m9c with his sims of my top six strategy changes he initially came up with the overall SCORE decreasing. He then analyzed each of the top six separately to find out which of the top 6 resulting in a decreasing SCORE. He found the culprit, fixed his program and the overall SCORE increased

It should also be noted the the SCORE increased on a case by case basis for each of the top 6 individually. So SCORE increased doing only one top 6 strategy change at a time showing the sensitivity of the increased CC resulting in an increased SCORE. Also he used the indices from my LSL program in his sims. If my indices were off the SCORE would not have increased,

Gronbog also ran a sim program to calculate the indices for my top 6 and the indices from his sim program matched the indices from my LSL program using EoR.

Also in the other sims that Gronbog did such as KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c which resoundingly beat HO2 w ASC for both no LS and LS he used my LSL calculated indices. If my LSL calculated indices were off the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c would not have beaten HO2 w ASC.

I also calculated indices using my LSL technique and EoR for the HL and HO2 for example and compared my calculated indices with published indices and my calculated indices agreed with the published indices every single time.

Finally it should be noted that my LSL calculated formulas for playing strategy changes made logical sense as well.

Making logical sense is not a proof. Making logical sense is a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove that my LSL formulas work But the fact that the formulas make logical sense makes the strategy changes easy to remember and gives an added level of comfort that my LSL calculations are correct.

So basically I have yet to be shown the my LSL technique, CC and LSL indices to be in error at least not any significant error - they have been shown to work remarkably well.

[ZeeBabar]

When Gronbog was analyzing HL w 7m9c with his sims of my top six strategy changes he initially came up with the overall SCORE decreasing. He then analyzed each of the top six separately to find out which of the top 6 resulting in a decreasing SCORE. He found the culprit, fixed his program and the overall SCORE increased

It should also be noted the the SCORE increased on a case by case basis for each of the top 6 individually. So SCORE increased doing only one top 6 strategy change at a time showing the sensitivity of the increased CC resulting in an increased SCORE. Also he used the indices from my LSL program in his sims. If my indices were off the SCORE would not have increased,

Gronbog also ran a sim program to calculate the indices for my top 6 and the indices from his sim program matched the indices from my LSL program using EoR.

Also in the other sims that Gronbog did such as KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c which resoundingly beat HO2 w ASC for both no LS and LS he used my LSL calculated indices. If my LSL calculated indices were off the KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c would not have beaten HO2 w ASC.

I also calculated indices using my LSL technique and EoR for the HL and HO2 for example and compared my calculated indices with published indices and my calculated indices agreed with the published indices every single time.

Finally it should be noted that my LSL calculated formulas for playing strategy changes made logical sense as well.

Making logical sense is not a proof. Making logical sense is a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove that my LSL formulas work But the fact that the formulas make logical sense makes the strategy changes easy to remember and gives an added level of comfort that my LSL calculations are correct.

So basically I have yet to be shown the my LSL technique, CC and LSL indices to be in error at least not any significant error - they have been shown to work remarkably well.

Ah, got it!!

[Sharky]

... For exampLe, I recently described my initial foray in Covid time at a $5-$200 table - playing $10 off the top, not reducing to $5 until -1 or crappier if winning. That Cost can be handled nicely with a 1-12 spread. I played that table to a 2x90 and 2x150 lower and upper ...

So a 1-12 spead on $5 table....you do have too much time on your hands, bro

[Freightman]

So a 1-12 spead on $5 table....you do have too much time on your hands, bro

Snarky
Im pleased that you have to learned to read. Your next task is learning to comprehend. Your last task is to comprehend spatially.

unfortunately, you’re still a Douchebag - second class. Oh, how’s the Bugatti?

[bjanalyst]

Or, you could use the correct RA values. It has nothing to do with "wanting to be more conservative". Waiting longer than the RA index will decrease SCORE.

LSL and EoR calculate expected value indices

I do not know how to calculate risk averse indices other than a guess that they are usually one or two true count points higher than the expected value indices.

But I would like to point out some observations below.

…………………..………………HL EV index……………HL CC……………AACpTCp…………..HL RA Index……RA – EV index
Double hard 10 v T…………..3.6……..………………81.1%. ..............0.9%........................7….... .……….3.4
Double hard 10 v A………….3.6……………………..93.7%.. .............2.6%........................5…..... .……….1.4

For doubling hard 10 v T the expected value index needs to be increased by 3.4 to get the RA index
For doubling hard 10 v A the expected value index needs to be increased by 1.4 to get the RA index
So I believe, but I do not know – this is just a guess, that because doubling hard 10 v T HL CC and AACpTCp is so much lower than for doubling hard 10 v A, the RA index for doubling hard 10 v T needs to be increased more than the RA index for doubling hard 10 v A.

[Norm]

EoRs cannot be used to correctly calculate indices.

[DSchles]

I do not know how to calculate risk averse indices other than a guess that they are usually one or two true count points higher than the expected value indices.

See BJA3, pp. 370-378. Have you not read this??

Don

[bjanalyst]

EoRs cannot be used to correctly calculate indices.

My apologies. I made a mistake earlier when you said EoR cannot be used to calculate indices. You were referring to RA indices. Thanks for clarifying.

EoR can be used to calculate EV indices but not RA indices.

I was just giving my best guess at what the RA index would be.

[bjanalyst]

See BJA3, pp. 370-378. Have you not read this??

Don

Ah! Excellent article and good analysis. Thanks for pointing it out. I will be reading it in detail. Thank you very much.

[DSchles]

Ah! Excellent article and good analysis. Thanks for pointing it out. I will be reading it in detail. Thank you very much.

There is also Joel Friedman's seminal paper that I reference at the bottom of page 370. Sadly, it can't be found anywhere online.

Don