88 v 10 and 16v10

[Cacarulo]

Alas. Avenues must be investigated. Some are, from the first, unlikely to to be productive. But, without study....

Totally agree, there are indices that are useless (such as 88vT), as I have well explained to "Secretariat",
but there are "others" that can really tip the balance in favor of the system.
I think Secretariat is on the right track, but I understand that without the right tools, the analysis he has to do is impossible.

The subject is very interesting and nothing can be ventured without a thorough study.
Only after an in-depth study will we be able to discuss its practicality or difficulty. I think it's not for everyone.
In particular I am a friend of simplicity.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Secretariat]

All for it. So, just wondering if the effort is worth it.
Don

Well, during the pandemic it was
That's how I got infected.


And I have seen how Tarzan got his record SCORE, so I have no illusions. Betting like Halves and yet still knowing all the proportions of cards in each of his three group, separating 23s from 45s, isolating 6s, 9s, Aces, perfect insurance, ect. Did I forget something? Oh yes! Key cards.

Just one question on Tarzan's methodology Don since you were there throughout all the steps.

I know he came up with all his unique 3D charts before going through the sims and correct me if I am wrong, Don, but those charts were based on combinatorial analysis of specific subsets in which he tried to maintain balance within each one of his three groups for example in his group of 6789s, he would keep 12 cards of each denomination for example. Is it how it was done?

At least that's what I tried to emulate but from a HiLo perspective.

[DSchles]

but those charts were based on combinatorial analysis of specific subsets in which he tried to maintain balance within each one of his three groups for example in his group of 6789s, he would keep 12 cards of each denomination for example. Is it how it was done?

Yes. But that the amount of memorization and visualization was staggering and daunting.

Don

[Zenfighter]

Secretariat wrote:

It's been beaten by 6% at 6D and probaly by more at DD. Pennies or dollars? I take +6% any time but I realize it could be 3%, 2%, 1%. I don't know yet.

News for me. I think the last time I heard about such extraordinary figures was in the late 90s, with me looking closely at the BJ´s scene and totally surprised about the claims of “The Three Horsemen” of the Non-Random theories, namely Patterson, Olsen and Clifton Davies. They were more modest in their claims, btw. Around a 4% only, IIRC.

But the times they are a changin´, for what I have seen in this thread. This guy who goes by the handle of Dylan, has always been plain right.

Another possibility, with a certain degree of a valid assumption on my part, is that you´re suffering the deceptive effects of this inseparable friend of us, called Standard Deviation, due to a meager collected sampling, and consequently, overly evaluating all this, far beyond the inherent merits of the system.

Sncerely,

Zenfighter

[Secretariat]

Secretariat wrote:

It's been beaten by 6% at 6D and probaly by more at DD. Pennies or dollars? I take +6% any time but I realize it could be 3%, 2%, 1%. I don't know yet.

News for me. I think the last time I heard about such extraordinary figures was in the late 90s, with me looking closely at the BJ´s scene and totally surprised about the claims of “The Three Horsemen” of the Non-Random theories, namely Patterson, Olsen and Clifton Davies. They were more modest in their claims, btw. Around a 4% only, IIRC.

But the times they are a changin´, for what I have seen in this thread. This guy who goes by the handle of Dylan, has always been plain right.

Another possibility, with a certain degree of a valid assumption on my part, is that you´re suffering the deceptive effects of this inseparable friend of us, called Standard Deviation, due to a meager collected sampling, and consequently, overly evaluating all this, far beyond the inherent merits of the system.

Sncerely,

Zenfighter

Hello Zen.
I like your handle by the way.
It corresponds to my spirit.

Here's an update from 2017 (The three Tarzan counts)
As you can see it beats Hi-Opt II by 6% at 6D at the top level.
And probably more at DD since playing efficiency can add more EV.

It's a non traditional count for sure and it took an extraordinary effort to sim it in 2017.
Don, Gronbog and Tarzan can tell you everything about it.

Cac added perfect insurance to HiLo recently (2022)
My HiLo system includes perfect insurance so I assume 22.77 as basis SCORE at 6D
Granted it hasn't been sim yet.
Custom indices will add to SCORE

I know I won't beat the top Tarzan level of 27.65
It involves a lot of mental gymnastics.
Tarzan is probably the only one to master it.


SCORES PLAY All 6D, S17, DAS, SPL3, 75% pen, 1-12 Spread
Hi-Lo alone = 21.15
Hi-Opt II no ASC = 22.69
Hi-Lo Cacarulo (2022)= 22.77
Tarzan Basic = 24.37
Hi-Opt II + ASC = 25.99
Tarzan Expert 27.21
Tarzan Expert + KC 27.65


Hope this puts things in perspective.

[Cacarulo]

Hello Zen.
I like your handle by the way.
It corresponds to my spirit.

Here's an update from 2017 (The three Tarzan counts)
As you can see it beats Hi-Opt II by 6% at 6D at the top level.
And probably more at DD since playing efficiency can add more EV.

It's a non traditional count for sure and it took an extraordinary effort to sim it in 2017.
Don, Gronbog and Tarzan can tell you everything about it.

Cac added perfect insurance to HiLo recently (2022)
My HiLo system includes perfect insurance so I assume 22.77 as basis SCORE at 6D
Granted it hasn't been sim yet.
Custom indices will add to SCORE

I know I won't beat the top Tarzan level of 27.65
It involves a lot of mental gymnastics.
Tarzan is probably the only one to master it.


SCORES PLAY All 6D, S17, DAS, SPL3, 75% pen, 1-12 Spread
Hi-Lo alone = 21.15
Hi-Opt II no ASC = 22.69
Hi-Lo Cacarulo (2022)= 22.77
Tarzan Basic = 24.37
Hi-Opt II + ASC = 25.99
Tarzan Expert 27.21
Tarzan Expert + KC 27.65


Hope this puts things in perspective.

Hi Sec,

First, let me make some corrections and clarifications about these systems.

Hi-Lo = 21.15
HO2 = 21.89
Hi-Lo/T = 22.77 (perfect insurance)
HO2/A = 25.53

All these SCOREs were calculated based on the R22 indices (C22 - 10vT + TTv4) except for Hi-Lo/T. In this case R21 indices + an extra index for perfect insurance (+17) were used.
All indexes are EV maximizers and floored (remaining decks calculated exactly).
In no case was an RA index used for comparison. Obviously, if instead of using EM-indices, RA-indices were used, and if 50/100 indices were used instead of 22, the SCORES would be higher.

I don't doubt that the SCOREs obtained from Tarzan are correct, but I think they are not comparable systems.
Perhaps it would be fairer to compare it to a system that uses 3 or 4 secondary counts.

Sincerely,
Cac