When you write SCORE, above, I'm assuming you mean hourly win rate, as SCORE dictates a RoR of 13.53%. so that comparisons remain apples to apples.
Don
Yes, the SCORE is determined by a RoR of 13.53% (full Kelly). Maybe I should use MathProf's notation (c-SCORE),Originally Posted by DSchles
since, although it meets most of the conditions (RoR, RPH, $10,000 BR, etc.), it was calculated for heads up.
It’s true that for a RoR different from 13.53%, we should refer to the hourly win rate (WR).
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
I was thinking (dangerous), given all the effort that has gone into correctly defining SCORE, since SCORE = both win rate and DI² when RoR is ~13.5% (plus all the other criteria), then under any other circumstances maybe one should just call win rate the win rate, and DI² the DI², because a reference to SCORE is now ambiguous.
(This sort of threw me the first time I read BJA3, because it starts out defining SCORE as a win rate, then refers to it as DI². Under the proper circumstances, they are the same. As I understand it.)
Yes, the SCORE chapter is what I am referring to. On page 154, where it is first being defined, it is first described as a dollar win rate, then as the square of the DI. Then on page 178,
“By definition (mine!), SCORE is the expected dollar amount won . . . .”
And on page 180,
“For me, SCORE (the square of the very special DI obtained by following the original guidelines) . . . .”
This is not a contradiction once you realize that win rate = DI², if and only if the RoR is 13.5% as in the SCORE specs. That is what it took me awhile to get. So in general, such as when comparing different bet ramps using the same unit size, RoR is not likely to be exactly 13.5%, and win rate does not equal DI². But that is o.k. because *neither* of them is actually the SCORE (my point), the special number that equals both of them under the specified conditions.
That is fantastic, Did you develope your own software?
Anyway I would like to confirm EV and Sd for these two options (for some reason we never confirm those numbers with Cac )
Bankroll 2000 units
TC <= 0 => 1u
TC = +1 => 3u
TC = +2 => 8u
TC = +3 => 14u
TC >= +4 => 20u
Bankroll 1100 units
TC <= -2 => WO
TC <= 0 => 1u
TC = +1 => 2u
TC = +2 => 5u
TC = +3 => 9u
TC = +4 => 13u
TC = +5 => 17u
TC >= +6 => 20u
Thanks in advance
Last edited by Seraph; 11-11-2024 at 12:52 PM.
Hi Seraph,
I realize my explanation might not have been entirely clear regarding when to use each of the betting ramps I suggested. Let’s set aside your bankroll for now.
The first betting ramp is optimal for a PA (Play All) scenario, where you play through the entire shoe without leaving the table at any count.
The second ramp is designed for cases where you leave the table if the TC drops to -2 or lower. This strategy can be applied with either bankroll;
the only difference will be the minimum bet and the resulting ROR.
With the first strategy, you’ll achieve a c-SCORE of 26.12 by playing 100% of the rounds, while with the second strategy,
you’ll achieve a c-SCORE of 35.39 by playing 74.34% of the rounds. In both cases, the same spread is used: 1-20.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks