Freddie: Halves vs HI-Lo

[stainless steel rat]

> NO, you don't for your own personal use. And
> you are using CVCX correctly for your own
> personal use. But, when responding to the
> original post; the general case must be
> used. Because the poster doesn't care what
> strategy is better for YOU. That's the
> point.

Continue that thought. Does _he_ care about the general case, or the specific case he is playing where he plays? Since I didn't know his specific game, I picked three, hoping one would be close to what he wanted.

I still believe anyone ought to buy CVCX before doing anything else, because it sheds a lot of light on a subject that is not very well understood, because the "general case" is just too abstract to be meaningful to a player that has to play a specific and real game...

Isn't this a case of first buying the tool, then trying to make that tool do the task you have now discovered you have? "To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Damned if I would choose a counting system based on any "general case". The "empirical scientist" in me demands that I first understand the problem (the specific rules of the game/games I am going to play) before I try to define a solution (choose the counting system I am going to use).

Here's a bit of humor while we are going on about theory and reality:

Young kid walks into the living room and asks his dad "Dad, our teacher gave us the assignment to learn the difference between theory and reality. Got any idea how I can do that?"

Dad thinks a few minutes, says "Son, go into the kitchen and ask your mother if she would 'sleep' with the postman for a million dollars.."

Son looks puzzled, but wanders off and finds his mom and asks. She thinks about it for a few minutes and says "yes, I believe I would."

Kid goes back to his dad and says "Dad, I asked mom and she said yes she would, but what does that have to do with my homework assignment about theory and reality?"

Dad said "son, it is like this. In theory, we are now millionaires. In reality, your mother is a slut."



As a computer scientist, theory is a necessity. But it has to be followed up by strong doses of reality to get large systems designed and implemented.

[Cacarulo]

> I well understand the difference between
> "theory" and "reality".
> But do I really care if strategy A is better
> in the general case for all possible games,
> while strategy B is better in the 2 or 3
> specific games I have the opportunity to
> play?

> This is why I like CVCX. Now I don't have to
> deal with this "general case
> nonsense" I can ask for the specific
> rules, penetration and strategy I want to
> use, and get the real EV for that set of
> circumstances.

> This is similar to DOD saying many years ago
> "ADA is superior for most programming
> applications, so we are no longer going to
> accept outside contracted programs written
> in any other language, and all of our
> internal programmers are going to have to
> use nothing but ADA for our projects."

> Later they realized that there are better
> languages for certain applications, and that
> the "general case" theory is
> superceded by the "special case"
> circumstances at hand. Same here, IMHO.
> That's the reason I picked three different
> games and gave the specific rules and then
> win rate for each strategy. And offered to
> do the same for a specific game he might
> choose if none of those fit the bill...

First of all, let me say that I agree with everything Norm and Don have said. The BEST way to do an "apple to apple" comparison is by using the following stats: SCORE, CE or N0.

But, as I understand your concerns you can do something else "if and only if" the comparison between both systems (A and B) is set as follows:

1) Same game
2) Same rules
3) Same pen
4) Same spread (note that I don't talk about unit size). You can use integer bets if you want.
5) Same bankroll
6) Same RPH (# of rounds per hour)
7) Same number of players
8) and the most important thing: Same ROR

Now, if your system A have a slight difference in for example ROR then the comparison will not be fair and you won't be making an "apple to apple" comparison. Is that clear? The ROR matching must be exact.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

that if the eight steps match then you use the WIN RATE for the comparison.

Cac

[Sun Runner]

> My only quibble here is that apparently I
> work in a bit more "professional
> circle" than is the norm here.

Please .. give me a break.

> I tend to assume people know what they are talking about.

Please .. give me a break.

> I made a "mistake" early on about
> fixing the min bet because many people play
> that way. Don said it was wrong to do so.
> Then when I post again, it gets a very
> cursory inspection and the same conclusion
> is reached a second time around.

> Cursory inspection. New book about Ace
> sequencing. Etc...

Please, give HIM a break (and by the way, a pretty cheap shot there. I'm trying hard to be nice but if you want to resort back to cheap shots -I have several ready.)

He, and Norm, are trying to tell you something. Can't you here it?

[Norm Wattenberger]

One last shot. If you have numbers for all the variables, then by all means plug them in for the answer. If you don't, then the theoretic answer is superior to a 'real' answer based upon guesses for the variables.

[stainless steel rat]

> First of all, let me say that I agree with
> everything Norm and Don have said. The BEST
> way to do an "apple to apple"
> comparison is by using the following stats:
> SCORE, CE or N0.

> But, as I understand your concerns you can
> do something else "if and only if"
> the comparison between both systems (A and
> B) is set as follows:

> 1) Same game
> 2) Same rules
> 3) Same pen
> 4) Same spread (note that I don't talk about
> unit size). You can use integer bets if you
> want.
> 5) Same bankroll
> 6) Same RPH (# of rounds per hour)
> 7) Same number of players
> 8) and the most important thing: Same ROR

> Now, if your system A have a slight
> difference in for example ROR then the
> comparison will not be fair and you won't be
> making an "apple to apple"
> comparison. Is that clear? The ROR matching
> must be exact.

> Hope this helps.

> Sincerely,
> Cac

I understand the ROR issue. But that goes back to theory vs reality. To fix identical RORs for two different strategies is probably going to require two different bet sizes. And if it requires something not a multiple of $5, then I have a problem... because I can't actually use it.

That was my only reason for fixing the min chip size, and saying that bets can be any amount, but they must be multiples of a real chip size and not single dollar amounts (or less).

So now we get down to what a computer scientist might call "fuzzy comparisons". How close do the two ROR values have to be before we can say they are "pretty equal"? Since identical is not going to happen, ever...

[Cacarulo]

> I understand the ROR issue. But that goes
> back to theory vs reality. To fix identical
> RORs for two different strategies is
> probably going to require two different bet
> sizes. And if it requires something not a
> multiple of $5, then I have a problem...
> because I can't actually use it.

You are not reading my post. You CAN use different bet sizes but not different bet SPREADS.

> That was my only reason for fixing the min
> chip size, and saying that bets can be any
> amount, but they must be multiples of a real
> chip size and not single dollar amounts (or
> less).

Yes, fix the chips anyway you like provided that ROR remains identical. Do not change bet spread though.

> So now we get down to what a computer
> scientist might call "fuzzy
> comparisons". How close do the two ROR
> values have to be before we can say they are
> "pretty equal"? Since identical is
> not going to happen, ever...

Yes, identical is going to happen is you use SCORE or N0. Otherwise you will have a tough time trying to make them identical.

Sincerely,
Cac

[stainless steel rat]

> You are not reading my post. You CAN use
> different bet sizes but not different bet
> SPREADS.

OK. Didn't do that. For the SD I used 1-4, for the DD game I used 1-8, and for the 6d game, I used 1-20 for every test result I posted..

> Yes, fix the chips anyway you like provided
> that ROR remains identical. Do not change
> bet spread though.

OK. We are in agreement there. I kept a constant spread for each game type, although obviously I changed the spread from SD to 6D.

> Yes, identical is going to happen is you use
> SCORE or N0. Otherwise you will have a tough
> time trying to make them identical.

> Sincerely,
> Cac

[Cacarulo]

> OK. Didn't do that. For the SD I used 1-4,
> for the DD game I used 1-8, and for the 6d
> game, I used 1-20 for every test result I
> posted..

That's correct provided that you compare SD against SD, DD against DD and so on.

> OK. We are in agreement there. I kept a
> constant spread for each game type, although
> obviously I changed the spread from SD to
> 6D.

Correct.

Sincerely,
Cac

[KidDangerous]

But you are going to date a girl, the
> sum of her bust, waist, hips and age is 124.
> Are you going to date her? Oh, did I fail to
> mention she is 60 years old?


Argue how to measure a system all you want all day. But I gotta step in on this woman thing. A good woman doesn't come in only a certain "Size"
regardless of age. Now you could make every BJ system in the world disappear, no big deal. But with out women, this world wouldn't survive. Can't have you clssifying them like that now. Jest ain't right.

Good Day to you all,

Kid

[Brick]

If i were you,I'd start out with simming optimal bets with a set spread as a bench mark. Then you'll be at a 13.5% risk of ruin for both. If you're comfortable with this and max bet is an odd number,round it off. Then tweek to the desired conditions you would like to bet. I would bet table minimum in negative counts,thus increasing your bet spread. Look and evaluate results. Do the exact same with the other count system. Then you should be able to see which system works better under your conditions and not the computers conditions.

Bye.

[stainless steel rat]

> But you are going to date a girl, the
> Argue how to measure a system all you want
> all day. But I gotta step in on this woman
> thing. A good woman doesn't come in only a
> certain "Size"
> regardless of age. Now you could make every
> BJ system in the world disappear, no big
> deal. But with out women, this world
> wouldn't survive. Can't have you clssifying
> them like that now. Jest ain't right.
> Good Day to you all,

> Kid

That was my point. "one number" is too vague. In computer science, hashing is the game, and collisions are the problem. Too many different things hash to the same n-bit signature. How many different women will fit that total above? I don't want to think about it. (and yes, women could do the same thing for men and draw some wrong (or right) conclusions in the processs. )

[stainless steel rat]

> If i were you,I'd start out with simming
> optimal bets with a set spread as a bench
> mark. Then you'll be at a 13.5% risk of ruin
> for both. If you're comfortable with this
> and max bet is an odd number,round it off.
> Then tweek to the desired conditions you
> would like to bet. I would bet table minimum
> in negative counts,thus increasing your bet
> spread. Look and evaluate results. Do the
> exact same with the other count system. Then
> you should be able to see which system works
> better under your conditions and not the
> computers conditions.

I let CVCX choose the bet min for this specific case, and I chose the spread based on what seems to be reasonable (I suppose we could argue about 6d spreads, I use 1-20 most of the time, have used 1-12 in the past, at at a $25 table I have used 1-8 or so).

But what I really want to know is that for the spread I have decided is "playable" by me (namely 5-40 or 5-2x25 for DD) which system will work the best. You would not believe how many sim runs I have made, how many comparisons I have made, to get a pretty good idea of (assuming hilo with the indices I use, I18, F4 + a few others) which game offers me the best hourly win rate when I factor in the rules, the penetration, what bet spread I need to try to reach assuming it doesn't trigger negative attention, etc. Up until I discovered CVCX, I had two options. One was "guess". Two was to run some sims on a very basic program I wrote a few years ago. It produces accurate results, but it doesn't have a nice GUI front-end, nor are the game rules "clickable" as I have to change the source. Now if I find a game with something different that I have not looked at, I can run up to my room, open up my trusty laptop, and find out whether I should play or run. If I don't want to precisely track the count with my bets, I can see what it will cost me. Etc...

This is all eye-opening and educational. Before long you reach the point where you can evaluate game rules and penetration just as easily and quickly as you can calculate the TC while playing...

> Bye.

That is _exactly_ what I do, except I forget about the initial step you gave since it didn't give me any useful information.