> snip> In billions of simulated hands, I
> have been unable to get any level two system
> (no side counts) to outperform the Halves in
> a shoe game. The Mentor and Zen ran close
> seconds, falling short by .01% or .02% in EV
> using a 1-to-10 spread. I'm puzzled as to
> why this differs from your statements.
The problem is that you're comparing EVs and not SCOREs. Below are the SCOREs of three systems in which ZEN is clearly superior than HALVES.
Game Analyzed: 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,heads up,5000 million rounds played,Play-All,Catch-22 floored indices.
1-4 1-8 1-12 1-16 1-20
Zen 11.40 28.97 38.60 44.51 48.49
UBZII(T) 11.38 28.87 38.47 44.35 48.31
Halves 11.16 28.69 38.33 44.25 48.27
Let's take a 1-12 spread for example. What are the EVs of these three counts?
ZEN = 2.841 u/h (100 rounds per hour)
UBZII(T) = 2.846 u/h
HALVES = 2.881 u/h
So, if you go by the EV then HALVES is better but EV alone doesn't mean nothing. We need to know the SD and thus the SCORE. Here are the SDs:
ZEN = 45.729 u?/h (100 rounds per hour)
UBZII(T) = 45.882 u?/h
HALVES = 46.530 u?/h
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
Bookmarks