Alas, living with dishonorable people is part of the human experience.Originally Posted by G Man
Have a look sometime at the compound interest effect you get from very minor increases in % advantage over the course of a career. I think it may shock you.
The player who is trying to double a bank six times is going to have hundreds of thousands of dollars more all things being equal.
Last edited by Archvaldor; 07-01-2023 at 03:25 PM.
Flabbergasted, exactly. That´s what´s going to happen to most readers after watching the number of charts, sims and such an unusual well-written informative text, and a couple of gifts included, too. A bargain. If I regret anything, it is not having told him to restrain his inveterate generosity a little bit, by adding such amount of additional reliable information.
Zenfighter
Regarding whether it's worth the time and effort to make a change, it's a very personal decision. It depends on how satisfied you are with your current system.
We always strive to play better, improve our indices, make optimal bets, minimize errors, and so on. In other words, we want to get the most out of our game.
For example, using RA indices improves your game at no cost. You might ask yourself, is it worth learning them? As long as it adds value, it's worth it.
It's true, it has always been thought that attacking shoe games required a system with a high BC. This is true only if we play basic strategy.
In that case, we will have the best SCORE. As we start introducing indices, the BC starts to interact with the PE, and the value it originally had is not as significant.
This is where an optimal balance between BC and PE must exist. What is the most optimal combination of these two parameters? In other words, which one gives
you a higher SCORE? That is what my system aims for.
Let's take RAPC as an example. This is a level-4 system with the highest BC/BE of all: 0.9944/0.9919. However, if we look at the playing efficiency,
we can see that it tends to be low. For instance, IC = 0.7129, but what is the true efficiency of Insurance for this system? IE = 0.4072. That's why, when evaluating systems,
it is preferable to use efficiencies rather than correlations.
I don't believe casinos will return to pitch games. Shoes will continue to prevail, unfortunately. In the case of shuffle tracking, most people use Hi-Lo,
but I don't see any inconvenience in using CAC2 for the same reasons I mentioned before.
Sincerely,
Cac
ok, now I feel I need to clarify what was maybe simplistic in my head.
I am not against researchers that are selling their work and coming from Cacarulo I will never even question the work or the work ethic and the price doesn't bother me.
What surprised me (flabbergasted is "stupéfait" in French) is that the selling of the system is based on the assumption that the tags will remain secret...in 2023.
Am I wrong by saying that once the tags are known, someone with CVData could input the tags and get all the playing index numbers and much more ?
You can say I am pessimistic, but we are in 2023 and almost nothing stays secret for a significative time.
The entire research could remain private or secret, but the tags ?
G Man
Exactly, all the analyses were carried out based on BE, PE, and IE, and not on what was historically used (BC, PE, and IC). Obviously, the former is much more complicated than the latter since penetration also comes into play when
determining those "efficiencies." Zenfighter and I have worked very hard on this analysis. It is very likely that he will present a study on this in the near future.
Of course, determining the best system is not solely reduced to choosing the correct parameters; they must then be verified through many simulations to determine the best SCORE.
Sincerely,
Cac
It is highly probable that the tags will eventually become public, as it seems inevitable. Similarly, book or software piracy,
I am not against researchers that are selling their work and coming from Cacarulo I will never even question the work or the work ethic and the price doesn't bother me.
What surprised me (flabbergasted is "stupéfait" in French) is that the selling of the system is based on the assumption that the tags will remain secret...in 2023.
Am I wrong by saying that once the tags are known, someone with CVData could input the tags and get all the playing index numbers and much more ?
You can say I am pessimistic, but we are in 2023 and almost nothing stays secret for a significative time.
The entire research could remain private or secret, but the tags ?
which significantly undermines the efforts of authors, could follow the same path. Dishonest individuals can be found everywhere.
In the meantime, it would be desirable for the inevitable to occur as late as possible.
Sincerely,
Cac
Having listened to an almost endless chorus of voices singing blackjack's dirge over the past 20 years or so, I'm excited to see there are still folks seriously analyzing and attacking the game. I'm not sure I play enough to justify switching systems, but I'm sorely tempted to purchase it just to support your efforts.
I think I’ll buy - it would be for interests sake. I’ve tweaked and will continue to tweak my system - though self confessed I don’t have the ability to sim.
That being said, a simple system with indices surpassing halves (without tweaks) is extraordinary, that being a tag system, if I understand correctly , the ability to simultaneously improve with betting correlation with PE
Comments
1. I’ve never played an unbalanced system and am not sure how those proponents would feel about a switch to a balanced system
2. Likely mostly geared to the hi lo player wanting to up their game
3. I think the switch to Cac2 would be easy enough. The issue for those players who have studied appropriate indices, is the additional time required to transfer to the new system of indices. Will they be prepared to do so.
4. Simply another way of looking at it. Earn 10-15% more money, or work less for the same amount
5. I regard optimal play as a quick way out the door. SCORE is a great way of evaluating systems. I would think that most if not all existing advanced strategies could easily adapt to work around SCORE.
6. I’m most interested in your version of R22 and how it might relate to what I’m doing
7.
Correct, no tweaks.
Comments
1. I’ve never played an unbalanced system and am not sure how those proponents would feel about a switch to a balanced system
2. Likely mostly geared to the hi lo player wanting to up their game
3. I think the switch to Cac2 would be easy enough. The issue for those players who have studied appropriate indices, is the additional time required to transfer to the new system of indices. Will they be prepared to do so.
4. Simply another way of looking at it. Earn 10-15% more money, or work less for the same amount
5. I regard optimal play as a quick way out the door. SCORE is a great way of evaluating systems. I would think that most if not all existing advanced strategies could easily adapt to work around SCORE.
6. I’m most interested in your version of R22 and how it might relate to what I’m doing
7.I don't understand your comment. CAC2 is not an unbalanced system.1. I’ve never played an unbalanced system and am not sure how those proponents would feel about a switch to a balanced system
CAC2 is a balanced system, ace-reckoned, that doesn't require any additional side counts. It is designed to provide a positive change for players who are seeking an alternative to the system they have been using.
It is not limited exclusively to Hi-Lo players, although the transition may be easier for them compared to KO players. Additionally, advanced-level players would also benefit from reduced mental fatigue.
To adapt to the CAC2 system, players will need to study new indices, and they could start with the R22 indices and then progress to the R52 indices.
The R22 indices are a variant of the C22 indices where 10vT is replaced with TTv4.
You're right about SCORE. SCORE is one of the best ways of evaluating a system.
Thanks for your comments.
Sincerely,
Cac
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks