Indexes

[BJGenius007]

Agree. But in this case, we have 6 new generation cores versus 8 old generation cores.

I also agree with you. In this case, both are manufactured using 7nm process. So the performance difference is not that big. The old one has 2 additional cores. And the new one is optimized on the structure.

[Zenfighter]

Yes, your one-decimal indices are correct.
I got pretty much the same thing:

16vT: 0.0 (0,04) Generic
T6vT: 0.7 (0.66)
97vT: 0.0 (0,02)
88vT: 0.0 (0,03)

15vT: 3.9 (3,87) Generic
T5vT: 3.8 (3,79)
96vT: 3.8 (3,80)
87vT: 3.8 (3,80)

Sincerely,
Cac


Cac, see if you can lower T6 vs T and T5 vs T just one decimal point.
A hint: use the European more menacing ten, as I have.

Best

Zenfighter

[Cacarulo]

Yes, your one-decimal indices are correct.
I got pretty much the same thing:

16vT: 0.0 (0,04) Generic
T6vT: 0.7 (0.66)
97vT: 0.0 (0,02)
88vT: 0.0 (0,03)

15vT: 3.9 (3,87) Generic
T5vT: 3.8 (3,79)
96vT: 3.8 (3,80)
87vT: 3.8 (3,80)

Sincerely,
Cac


Cac, see if you can lower T6 vs T and T5 vs T just one decimal point.
A hint: use the European more menacing ten, as I have.

Best

Zenfighter

I don't understand. What do you want me to do?

Cac

[Gramazeka]

Calculate for rules ENHC.

[DSchles]

Calculate for rules ENHC.

With ES? Otherwise, no difference.

Don

[Zenfighter]

Hand Hitting Standing Difference Rules

T,6 v T -0.570817 -0.576608 0.005791 ENHC
T,6 v T -0.534676 -0.540954 0.006278 USA

Thus, hitting T,6 v T is a little bit more favorable under US rules,
and therefore, the corresponding index to stand ( a.k.a. to do the opposite) is a little bit higher than the European one, as your figures correctly show.

Do we agree now?

Zenfighter

[Cacarulo]

Hand Hitting Standing Difference Rules

T,6 v T -0.570817 -0.576608 0.005791 ENHC
T,6 v T -0.534676 -0.540954 0.006278 USA

Thus, hitting T,6 v T is a little bit more favorable under US rules,
and therefore, the corresponding index to stand ( a.k.a. to do the opposite) is a little bit higher than the European one, as your figures correctly show.

Do we agree now?

Zenfighter

Hi ZF,

6D, ENHC/USA

16vT = 0.04 / 0.04 (Generic)
T6vT = 0.66 / 0.66
97vT = 0.02 / 0.02
88vT = 0.03 / 0.03

15vT = 3.84 / 3.87(Generic)
T5vT = 3.75 / 3.79
96vT = 3.77 / 3.80
87vT = 3.77 / 3.80

As you can see, there are NO changes in 16vT but in 15vT there is a tiny bit difference (insignificant) in favor of USA rules.
Perhaps the differences you are seeing have nothing to do with the rules but with the EORs. One thing I didn't mention in my post is that the EORs used in this analysis were calculated from a 6-deck pack and to 10 decimal places of precision. Something I discovered years ago is that precision in the number of decimal places and using the correct number of decks is much more accurate than using 1-deck EORs for everything.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Zenfighter]

Hi ZF,

6D, ENHC/USA

16vT = 0.04 / 0.04 (Generic)
T6vT = 0.66 / 0.66
97vT = 0.02 / 0.02
88vT = 0.03 / 0.03

15vT = 3.84 / 3.87(Generic)
T5vT = 3.75 / 3.79
96vT = 3.77 / 3.80
87vT = 3.77 / 3.80

As you can see, there are NO changes in 16vT but in 15vT there is a tiny bit difference (insignificant) in favor of USA rules.
Perhaps the differences you are seeing have nothing to do with the rules but with the EORs. One thing I didn't mention in my post is that the EORs used in this analysis were calculated from a 6-deck pack and to 10 decimal places of precision. Something I discovered years ago is that precision in the number of decimal places and using the correct number of decks is much more accurate than using 1-deck EORs for everything.

Sincerely,
Cac

Well done, Cac. My apologies for the extra efforts added, while dealing with this stuff. I like this table more. More clarifying.

Thanks,

Zenfighter

[k_c]

Hand Hitting Standing Difference Rules

T,6 v T -0.570817 -0.576608 0.005791 ENHC
T,6 v T -0.534676 -0.540954 0.006278 USA

Thus, hitting T,6 v T is a little bit more favorable under US rules,
and therefore, the corresponding index to stand ( a.k.a. to do the opposite) is a little bit higher than the European one, as your figures correctly show.

Do we agree now?

Zenfighter

I don't believe there are any differences for hit/stand indexes for USA versus ENHC rules, only for doubling and splitting. ENHC takes all additional bets added after doubling or splitting in the case of dealer blackjack where USA does not.

Relationship: USA = ENHC + "rebate" for doubles/splits added bets

USA player gets his money back for doubles/splits. For hit/stand there is no difference.

Of course in actuality USA player never gets a chance to add extra bets for doubles/splits if dealer flips over blackjack and just takes initial bets but the principle is the same.

k_c

[Zenfighter]

I don't believe there are any differences for hit/stand indexes for USA versus ENHC rules, only for doubling and splitting. ENHC takes all additional bets added after doubling or splitting in the case of dealer blackjack where USA does not.

Relationship: USA = ENHC + "rebate" for doubles/splits added bets

USA player gets his money back for doubles/splits. For hit/stand there is no difference.

Of course in actuality USA player never gets a chance to add extra bets for doubles/splits if dealer flips over blackjack and just takes initial bets but the principle is the same.

k_c

You are right, provided these indices are extracted with Monte-Carlo sims. We are talking here about algebraic derived ones with the employment of exact Eor’s for both rules. See last Cac’s post about this. Thus, if ENHC effects of removal differ from US ones for the hand in question, and I’m using a fixed formulae (a courtesy of “The Bish“,btw) to extract them, you can`t expect both indices to match perfectly, unless you think that I’m a sort of magician who can do that.

Sincerely

Zenfighter

[k_c]

You are right, provided these indices are extracted with Monte-Carlo sims. We are talking here about algebraic derived ones with the employment of exact Eor’s for both rules. See last Cac’s post about this. Thus, if ENHC effects of removal differ from US ones for the hand in question, and I’m using a fixed formulae (a courtesy of “The Bish“,btw) to extract them, you can`t expect both indices to match perfectly, unless you think that I’m a sort of magician who can do that.

Sincerely

Zenfighter

OK.

These are the EVs you quoted which it looks like are from 6 decks:
T,6 v T -0.570817 -0.576608 0.005791 ENHC
T,6 v T -0.534676 -0.540954 0.006278 USA

It depends on how eor is computed. USA EV above is computed as conditional EV given dealer has checked for blackjack and doesn't have it. If instead unconditional EV is used then USA EVs would exactly match ENHC EVs. Unconditional EV means player non-BJ loses and player BJ pushes if dealer has blackjack.

Hopefully helpful,
k_c

[DSchles]

But then, what you're saying is that there is a flaw in the methodology of using algebraically derived indices, because, logically, there shouldn't be any difference between the two at all.

Don

[Zenfighter]

But then, what you're saying is that there is a flaw in the methodology of using algebraically derived indices, because, logically, there shouldn't be any difference between the two at all.

Don

The formulae to extract algebraic derived indices appeared first, as you surely know, in a paper called “An Algebraic Approximation to Optimal Blackjack Strategy.”
To approximate and being flawed at the same time looks like a contradictio in terrminis, because experience has taught us, that they tend to approach the Monte Carlo derived ones, quite fairly.

Question: Why this paper is not for sale anymore?
Answer: Because a few RNG’s computer wizards appeared on the scene,
Karel and Norm among the best of them. End of the story.

“If you find something you dislike inside these indices, then go with the
Simulated ones.”

That’s not me Don, that`s “Stanford Wong” ????

Zenfighter