A week or so back there was a discussion about using index numbers to the first decimal place. Don has been reviewing/reworking a spreadsheet I made that deals with that subject, and it should eventually make it to these pages in one form or another. But in the meanwhile, I thought it'd be interesting to show what happens when you go the other direction - become less precise than accuracy to the "ones" place.
The tables below compare the SCORES of precise, risk-averse index numbers (roughly 150 indices) to another set in which the index numbers are averaged between single deck and multi-deck, and then rounded to the nearest "5,"(In other words, index numbers are 0, +-5, +-10, +-15, etc). Four exceptions: Insurance, 12v3, and A,8v3 = +3, and 13v3 = -3. I kept the precise numbers intact on these 4 decisions because the plays are "volatile" and the index happened to be "in the middle," thus not well-suited to rounding.
When I had to make decisions about rounding up or down, I favored the single deck numbers, because that's the game I play most often. But it's noteworthy, because even with these low "loss" percentages, these are still "compromise" sets of index numbers, landing somewhere in between Reno, Vegas, and AC figures. So, if you were merely rounding to the nearest five, and not also "compromising," you might be able to do even better.
H17 NDAS 1D
Benchmark Rounded Loss
1-5 $189.30 $187.87 1%
1-4 $160.27 $158.66 1%
1-3 $120.65 $118.99 1%
1-2 $66.71 $65.28 2%
1-1 $7.83 $7.30 7%
H17 NDAS 6D - play only @ TC >= 0
(Only 1 variation from 1D matrix: Insurance = +5)
Benchmark Rounded Loss
1-16 $167.84 $163.38 3%
1-12 $162.91 $157.91 3%
1-10 $161.86 $157.18 3%
1-8 $157.04 $152.20 3%
1-6 $148.25 $143.34 3%
S17 DAS 6D play only @ TC >= 0
(30 play variations from 1D matrix)
Benchmark Rounded Loss
1-16 $210.43 $209.12 1%
1-12 $208.95 $207.46 1%
1-10 $207.61 $206.05 1%
1-8 $204.21 $202.55 1%
1-6 $197.49 $195.87 1%
Bookmarks