> The updated Chapter 10 sims are all Hi-Lo.
> There's no K-O in Chapter 10.
. . . . . I knew that.
:-)
> The updated Chapter 10 sims are all Hi-Lo.
> There's no K-O in Chapter 10.
. . . . . I knew that.
:-)
> You buy BJRM and go to Systems 101, where
> you will find the I18 and Fab4 for many,
> many systems.
I thought BJRM Systems 101 gives index values based upon penetration in RC mode. That is NOT what I'm looking for. I would like the I-18 Fab4 "one index fits all" that John used for his SIM. If I understand you correctly then there shouldn't be more then 22 index plays for the strategy.
You write below John isn't going to publish the indices. Now your saying they are available on BJRM Systems 101? Sorry Don I'm confused. :-)
-MJ
>In his separate booklet of the WGBJS for K-O, >John explains that he isn't going to publish the >indices used, because the authors requested that >he not do so, but: 1) One single index was used >for any given given play (although, of course, >it might have changed as number of decks changed);
> I thought BJRM Systems 101 gives index
> values based upon penetration in RC mode.
> That is NOT what I'm looking for.
Use the number for the average penetration, midway through the number of decks dealt. How far off can that be? Otherwise, I can't help you. What's published is published and what isn't, isn't!
> I would
> like the I-18 Fab4 "one index fits
> all" that John used for his SIM. If I
> understand you correctly then there
> shouldn't be more then 22 index plays for
> the strategy.
John isn't publishing those, from what I understand. I suggest you infer them from Systems 101.
> You write below John isn't going to publish
> the indices. Now your saying they are
> available on BJRM Systems 101? Sorry Don I'm
> confused. :-)
See above. Systems 101 also has the TKO indices. You'll have to settle for what is readily available. Alternatively, maybe you should be over at DD, where someone would likely generate a set of indices for you.
Don
The text in the SCORE chapter is correct, and the same base sims are in BJRM ( within pennies in the results). The BJRM sims are based on "Preferred".
In general, do not use BJRM canned sims for "research". It was never meant for that. Use it for "close enough" comparisons. Use Norm's software for serious research.
I was much more careful to do apples-to-apples for the articles and books, of course.
It's been years since the did the canned sims, but it is slightly possible that I snuck indices in there for those members of the I18 F4 that did not otherwise have a "Preferred" equivalent.
If so, it would account for the "pennies" difference from the SCORE chapter. It would also show why Fuchs kept the "Preferred" indices smaller, since it makes almost no difference anyway. He put the "money" ones in there.
Whatever happened to Ken Fuchs, anyway?
He deserves more "fame" that he has, for his pioneering work on true counting unbalanced systems, and for KO, of course.
> Whatever happened to Ken Fuchs, anyway?
Fuchs' interest in KO was bought out by Anthony and Olaf. Haven't heard from him in years.
> Fuchs' interest in KO was bought out by
> Anthony and Olaf. Haven't heard from him in
> years.
He used to post here occasionally, but his most recent post was about two years ago. Use of the Search function on the main page will turn up a handful of posts by him.
... was more into the programming aspects. I thought Vancura was more the genius on the theory end. I could be wrong though.
ETF
He deserves more "fame" that he has, for his pioneering work on true counting unbalanced systems, and for KO, of course.
John and I talked for a while on the phone today, and, after doing some detective work, I now believe that the p. 165 paragraph quoted by Parker from BJA3 is not correct. I am reasonably sure that all the K-O sims were done with the I18 and Fab4, where applicable.
The reason I say this is because some of the SCOREs for K-O appear in three separate places in the chapter: In the side-by-side comparisons with all the other systems, in the separate section for the complete set of K-O SCOREs, and in the triple comparison with Hi-Lo and Red Seven. In EVERY one of the those sections, for a given game, all the K-O SCOREs are identical and are internally consistent. And, of this much John and I are 100% certain: For the apples-to-apples side-by-side comparisons, the I18 and Fab4 were used for all the systems studied -- otherwise, what would have been the point?
So, if that's the case (and it is), then the K-O SCOREs reported in BJA3 use more than just the book's Preferred indices.
John and I suspect that the damning p. 165 paragraph was written one way, at the beginning of the study, and then never changed when we switched to the SCORE comparisons. I'm sorry for the confusion this has caused, and if we ever get around to another printing, I'll modify the paragraph in question, but, as things stand now, this is my story, and I'm sticking to it! :-)
Don
> How do you know it makes no difference? If
> the BJRM canned sims and BJA3 BOTH use the
> same indices(I-18 Fab4) then there is no
> basis for comparison with the KO Preferred
> Strategy. How can you make the above
> statement if you don't even know how the KO
> Preferred Strategy performs?
Because John has played with, simulated, and worked with K-O since the day it came out. And, his logic makes perfectly good sense. The indices that were omitted from K-O (P), with respect to the I18 are those that are negative, are made with your minimum bet out, and are far away from the K-O pivot. Given those circumstances, just what do expect to get from those indices?
Go to p. 62 of BJA3 and look at the last two columns of the chart. Find the indices in question. What do they contribute to Hi-Lo? So, expect that they would contribute considerably less to K-O, given their distance from the pivot.
> My thinking is there is quite a bit of
> difference between KO Preferred and I-18
> Fab4. On bjstats.com the SCORE for KO
> Preferred is around $24.00/Hr. That is much
> smaller then the $30.00/Hr that I-18 Fab4
> will earn.
My thinking is that you're wrong and that the differences you're observing have to do with sims that aren't apples-to-apples.
> Lastly you probably should not have written
> KO Preferred on the BJRM chart as this
> strategy was not used.
It was used, but it was augmented by filling in the missing indices. So, it was not used exclusively.
> The gain from KO I-18
> Fab4 over KO Preferred is quite substantial.
Highly doubtful. In fact, certainly not true.
> Many people who use BJRM to perform
> calculations will erroneously believe KO
> Preferred performs much better then it
> really does when in fact KO I-18 Fab4 was
> used for the sims.
It seems to me that BJRM says "I18 and Fab4" prominently at the top of the sim. Does your version say something different? I realize that it also says "KO Preferred," and that is confusing, but when you saw BOTH of these descriptions together, why did you focus on the Preferred part and ignore the I18 and Fab4 part? I ask only because I did just the opposite! :-)
Don
What Don has written, is true.
Here is another point. When I use the term "KO Preferred", I take it primarily as indicating that, rather than have separate unique RC values for all indices, they are "grouped" together around one or two compromise RC's.
Many of the I18 F4 indices are in those groups, and the ones that aren't, either don't help, or actually hurt, as they are so far from piviot as to be wrong more than they are right, depending on penetration.
So, if you ever see, in my canned sims, both "KO Preferred" and I18 F4, you know that indices were grouped around only a few unique RC's, and if I "added" a couple to fill in the missing I18 and F4, it would have only had an insignificant effect on the results.
So, ENOUGH on this teapot tempest!
-JA
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks