-
Bert Nommel: Simulations: The Ace Neutral Level Two Counts
Here are some interesting sims. Rules were 2D, DOA, DAS, S17, noLS, Catch 22 indices, 78% penetration. 5 billion hands. True Count estimated to nearest 1/2 deck and floored. Each system side counted aces for betting.
AO II: Flat Bet SCORE = $0.0333
1-2 SCORE = $22.94
1-4 SCORE = $71.06
1-8 SCORE = $117.29
Ace Neutral RPC: Flat Bet SCORE = $0.0365
1-2 SCORE = $23.91
1-4 SCORE = $74.48
1-8 SCORE = $123.43
Hi-OPT II: Flat Bet SCORE = $0.0442
1-2 SCORE = $24.11
1-4 SCORE = $73.43
1-8 SCORE = $120.56
I think the AO II did not do better becasue the other two counts have better insurance correlations. The IC's are AO II = 0.85, Ace Neutral RPC = 0.892, and HO II = 0.909. The Ace Neutral RPC had a bit better BE than the HO II, 0.984 vs 0.982. The AO II had the best BC of 0.989. PE's were: AO II = 0.671, Ace Neutral RPC = 0.657 and HOII = 0.668.
With more indices or changes in penetration or if single deck, things could shake out differently.
Bert
-
zengrifter: What is an "Ace-neutral RPC" ? *NM*
-
Bert Nommel: Re: What is an "Ace-neutral RPC" ?
It is the tags, ace thru T: 0,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2. Just ther Revere point count with the Ace counted as zero. This count is unbalanced, but can be true counted. Using an unbalanced count makes side counting the ace easier, just add the number of unplayed aces to the running count. The simple addition converts to the RPC. I wrote an article about this in the either the Spring or Summer 1999 issue of BJF (don't remeber the exact date). At that time I did not know about SCORE technique or equivilent balanced counts and have just now gotten around to comparing the Ace Neutral RPC (or Flex II as I called it in 1999) to the traditional ace neutral counts.
Bert
-
zengrifter: 'Flex 2.5'...
-1,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2 has a lower pivot point and higher betting efficiencey, I just invented it, I think. zg
> It is the tags, ace thru T:
> 0,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2. Just ther Revere point
> count with the Ace counted as zero. This
> count is unbalanced, but can be true
> counted. Using an unbalanced count makes
> side counting the ace easier, just add the
> number of unplayed aces to the running
> count. The simple addition converts to the
> RPC. I wrote an article about this in the
> either the Spring or Summer 1999 issue of
> BJF (don't remeber the exact date). At that
> time I did not know about SCORE technique or
> equivilent balanced counts and have just now
> gotten around to comparing the Ace Neutral
> RPC (or Flex II as I called it in 1999) to
> the traditional ace neutral counts.
> Bert
-
Bert Nommel: You rediscovered the UBZ II *NM*
-
zengrifter: Oops, you are right! *NM*
-
Cacarulo: Re: Simulations: The Ace Neutral Level Two Counts
> Here are some interesting sims. Rules were
> 2D, DOA, DAS, S17, noLS, Catch 22 indices,
> 78% penetration. 5 billion hands. True Count
> estimated to nearest 1/2 deck and floored.
> Each system side counted aces for betting.
> AO II: Flat Bet SCORE = $0.0333
> 1-2 SCORE = $22.94
> 1-4 SCORE = $71.06
> 1-8 SCORE = $117.29
> Ace Neutral RPC: Flat Bet SCORE = $0.0365
> 1-2 SCORE = $23.91
> 1-4 SCORE = $74.48
> 1-8 SCORE = $123.43
> Hi-OPT II: Flat Bet SCORE = $0.0442
> 1-2 SCORE = $24.11
> 1-4 SCORE = $73.43
> 1-8 SCORE = $120.56
> I think the AO II did not do better becasue
> the other two counts have better insurance
> correlations. The IC's are AO II = 0.85, Ace
> Neutral RPC = 0.892, and HO II = 0.909. The
> Ace Neutral RPC had a bit better BE than the
> HO II, 0.984 vs 0.982. The AO II had the
> best BC of 0.989. PE's were: AO II = 0.671,
> Ace Neutral RPC = 0.657 and HOII = 0.668.
You're right about the IC. Actually, if you run the same sims but without Ins, AOII should outperform Hi-Opt II. The problem is that AO2 counts the nine as -1 which hurts the top playing decision (Insurance).
> With more indices or changes in penetration
> or if single deck, things could shake out
> differently.
Yes, there are many factors that could change the ranking.
Thanks for the sims.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
-
bjcounter2002: Re: Simulations: The Ace Neutral Level Two Counts
> You're right about the IC. Actually, if you
> run the same sims but without Ins, AOII
> should outperform Hi-Opt II. The problem is
> that AO2 counts the nine as -1 which hurts
> the top playing decision (Insurance).
> Yes, there are many factors that could
> change the ranking.
> Thanks for the sims.
> Sincerely,
> Cacarulo
Sims seem to confirm all previous studies on the subject. When progressing to a level 2 count several years ago I considered all 3 of these. I decided upon the HO II as it was comparable in every aspect to any counting system. In addition, as a level 2 count, it is "reasonably" easy to use. I chose it over the AO II in that they perform almost identical yet the IC is stronger for the HO II. You are exactly right, however, that the underperformance of the IC on the AO II is because of the inclusion of the 9 in the count. I ruled out the RPC because I prefer a side count of Aces in making betting and playing decisions particularly those such as doubling 10 v 10 and 9 v 7.
The bottom line is that all 3 counts are solid and, IMO, it is definitely worth learning a multi-level if you play primarily 1 and 2 deck games. I have seen my win rate increase substantially.
bjcounter2002
-
Bert Nommel: 1-2 spread the Hi Opt II was the best score (NT) *NM*
-
Cacarulo: Don't understand
A 1-2 spread does not get rid of insurance. You're still gaining more due to this play.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
-
Bert Nommel: Re: Don't understand
Just pointing out something I found interesting. Not a direct responce to your statements about insurance.
I was just referring to the fact that at this low spread of 1-2 the Hi-OPT II beat out the other systems, but that the Ace Neutral RPC pulled ahead at the greater spreads.
The difference among the counts magnified it self along the lines of BC as the spread increased (nothing unusual).
I appreciate your comments.
Bert
-
T-Hopper: Another Hi-OIpt II finding
With basic strategy and insurance ONLY it is also a very strong count. I've created some insurance-adjusted betting EORs to explain this.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks