euphdude: conflicting SCORE and BC/PE/IC Correlation

[Brick Waller]

The data at your website that euphdude is refering to.

[Sun Runner]

> No, unfortunately I don't have those
> statistics anymore. I calculated those
> SCOREs a long time ago.

When you say TKO is the best level one system, would your endorsement extend to SD and DD play also?

> What I do have are the SCOREs for 6D.

I assumed TKO (KO) would measure up well in multi-decks. Can you post the TKO SCOREs for 6D?

Thank you.

[Cacarulo]

> When you say TKO is the best level one
> system, would your endorsement extend to SD
> and DD play also?

Yes, assuming the other systems don't use any side count and that we are using a decent spread.
If you're going to flat-bet then any system with a higher PE will do better.

> I assumed TKO (KO) would measure up well in
> multi-decks. Can you post the TKO SCOREs for
> 6D?

Rules: 6D, S17, DOA, DAS, SPA1, SPL3, NS, 5/6 pen, Catch-22 indices, 1 player, 5000 million rounds on my personal simulator.

Table of SCOREs

                1-4     1-8     1-12    1-16    1-20 

TKO            10.41   27.41   36.81   42.64   46.59 

UBZII(R)       10.79   27.72   36.61   41.92   45.43 

Hi-Opt II      10.76   27.30   36.27   41.72   45.38 

Hi-Opt I/A     10.25   26.69   35.66   41.16   44.92 

DRed7(R)       10.17   26.65   35.38   40.63   44.11 

KO(R)           8.62   25.52   34.94   40.69   44.55 

Hi-Lo           9.61   25.83   34.84   40.43   44.24 

Uston +/-       9.39   25.32   34.28   39.82   43.59 

Rev.Adv.+/-/A   9.53   25.27   33.92   39.23   42.83 

Griffin/A       9.34   24.94   33.57   38.89   42.53 

Silver Fox      9.13   24.71   33.37   38.76   42.41 

Hi-Opt I        8.22   22.45   30.32   35.18   38.44 

Rev.Adv.+/-     7.64   21.30   28.91   33.58   36.77

Note: I put an (R) to show which systems go in Running-Count mode.

Enjoy!
Cac

[Sun Runner]

[Norm Wattenberger]

> The data at your website that euphdude is
> refering to.

The data on my comparisons page would be for true counting. As the page says "Note: Playing Efficiency (as defined by Griffin) is not relevant to unbalanced card counting systems." I should probably stress this more strongly.

[Don Schlesinger]

> The data on my comparisons page would be for
> true counting. As the page says "Note:
> Playing Efficiency (as defined by Griffin)
> is not relevant to unbalanced card counting
> systems." I should probably stress this
> more strongly.

What you should write is: "Playing Efficiency (as defined by Griffin) is not relevant to unbalanced card counting systems in running-count mode."

Don

[Cacarulo]

[Don Schlesinger]