Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 17

Thread: Norm Wattenberger: System Strength ? another perspective

  1. #1
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: System Strength ? another perspective

    SCORE has provided a great method of comparing strategies. Fix the risk, bankroll, spread and rules and we get a standardized win rate. For the fun of it, I wanted to look at system strength from a different perspective. Fix risk, bankroll, rules and win rate (i.e. SCORE) and look at the required spread. That is, how much must you change the spread in order to gain the same win rate from different strategies? I compared three strategies: KO Rookie (KO with no indexes,) KO Preferred (standard KO,) and Hi-Opt II with Ace side count and full indexes. Obviously these three require dramatically different skill levels. Two sets of circumstances were examined each with a $10,000 bankroll and 13.5% risk.

    First, 6 decks, S17, DAS, LS, 75% penetration, $24 win rate. Required spreads:



    Hi-Opt II1-6
    KO Preferred1-9
    KO Rookie1-18

    Second, single deck, H17, two players, four rounds, $66 win rate. Required spreads:




    Hi-Opt II1-2
    KO Preferred1-3
    KO Rookie1-7

    My point? Well, I didn?t really have one in mind But, you can look at system strength in more ways than winnings per hour. Alternatively you could look at it in terms of longevity. BTW, I believe in simplicity and am not trying to convince anyone to advance to more complex strategies. But, increased skills do have advantages.


    CVCX Online

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Very interesting concept

    Very innovative thinking, Norm. Although most people would use a more powerful system to make more money, the interesting case is made for standardizing the SCORE and then seeing how small a spread can be achieved, thereby promoting better cover and, ultimately, longevity.

    Although I predict this concept will not exactly catch on and spread like wildfire, it is a very original and interesting idea.

    Don

  3. #3
    Nomad
    Guest

    Nomad: Re: System Strength ? another perspective

    > SCORE has provided a great method of comparing
    > strategies. Fix the risk, bankroll, spread and rules
    > and we get a standardized win rate. For the fun of it,
    > I wanted to look at system strength from a different
    > perspective. Fix risk, bankroll, rules and win rate
    > (i.e. SCORE) and look at the required spread. That is,
    > how much must you change the spread in order to gain
    > the same win rate from different strategies? I
    > compared three strategies: KO Rookie (KO with no
    > indexes,) KO Preferred (standard KO,) and Hi-Opt II
    > with Ace side count and full indexes. Obviously these
    > three require dramatically different skill levels. Two
    > sets of circumstances were examined each with a
    > $10,000 bankroll and 13.5% risk.

    > First, 6 decks, S17, DAS, LS, 75% penetration, $24 win
    > rate. Required spreads: Hi-Opt II 1-6 KO
    > Preferred 1-9 KO Rookie 1-18 Second, single
    > deck, H17, two players, four rounds, $66 win rate.
    > Required spreads:
    > Hi-Opt II 1-2 KO Preferred 1-3 KO Rookie
    > 1-7 My point? Well, I didn?t really have one in
    > mind But, you can look at system strength in more
    > ways than winnings per hour. Alternatively you could
    > look at it in terms of longevity. BTW, I believe in
    > simplicity and am not trying to convince anyone to
    > advance to more complex strategies. But, increased
    > skills do have advantages.

    > CVCX Online

    Norm,

    Thanks for this post. I found it very interesting and thought provoking - particularly the idea of looking at things in terms of longevity.

    I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but I'm glad you do! :-)

    Nomad

  4. #4
    Nomad
    Guest

    Nomad: Re: Very interesting concept

    > Very innovative thinking, Norm. Although most people
    > would use a more powerful system to make more money,
    > the interesting case is made for standardizing the
    > SCORE and then seeing how small a spread can be
    > achieved, thereby promoting better cover and,
    > ultimately, longevity.

    > Although I predict this concept will not exactly catch
    > on and spread like wildfire, it is a very original and
    > interesting idea.

    > Don

    Don,

    You certainly put it better than I did in my post, which I started writing a while ago, and then got sidetracked from before I finished it and hit the button... ;-)

    Just wanted to express appreciation for Norm's post.

    Nomad

  5. #5
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: System Strength ? another perspective

    Thanks. The interesting thing is that although the idea is to fix the win rate, your actual win rate would likely increase anyhow since you would spend less times changing tables and casinos.

    > Norm,

    > Thanks for this post. I found it very interesting and
    > thought provoking - particularly the idea of looking
    > at things in terms of longevity.

    > I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but
    > I'm glad you do! :-)

    > Nomad

  6. #6
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Very interesting concept

    > Very innovative thinking, Norm. Although most people
    > would use a more powerful system to make more money,
    > the interesting case is made for standardizing the
    > SCORE and then seeing how small a spread can be
    > achieved, thereby promoting better cover and,
    > ultimately, longevity.

    > Although I predict this concept will not exactly catch
    > on and spread like wildfire, it is a very original and
    > interesting idea.

    > Don

    I would add that the idea is very useful for team play.

    Good post Norm!

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  7. #7
    V-man
    Guest

    V-man: Re: System Strength ? another perspective

    Looking at the 6 decks. I kind of understand the difference in spreads between HiOptII and KO Preferred, but between KO Preferred and KO Rookie, the spread requirement for same win rate is larger than I thought. I always thought that indices (specially KO indices) don't or can't make that seemingly 'huge' difference.
    Thanks for the great perspective.

  8. #8
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: System Strength ? another perspective

    Not having an index exactly correct doesn't make a large difference. But not having any indexes at all certainly does.

    > Looking at the 6 decks. I kind of understand the
    > difference in spreads between HiOptII and KO
    > Preferred, but between KO Preferred and KO Rookie, the
    > spread requirement for same win rate is larger than I
    > thought. I always thought that indices (specially KO
    > indices) don't or can't make that seemingly 'huge'
    > difference.
    > Thanks for the great perspective.

  9. #9
    JohnAuston
    Guest

    JohnAuston: Re: Very interesting concept

    Interesting concept, I agree, but as Norm's choice of systems shows, you need to make a dramatic increase in system strength to make a dramatic difference in spread required.

    Using the spread perspective, the difference between, say, hilo and KO, at a 4.5 of 6 play all, is less than 1u ( as you'd probably expect). At a 1-10 spread, hi-lo is slightly ahead of KO, but if you increase KO to 1-11 spread, now it is ahead of hilo.

    Both KO and hilo have to add 1u of spread to catch UBZ2 ( my fav ), and probably RPC, at 6 deck play all.

  10. #10
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: System Strength ? another perspective

    > Not having an index exactly correct doesn't make a
    > large difference. But not having any indexes at all
    > certainly does.

    I would be curious to see were a "KO Semi-Rookie" would fit into this. This would be KO Rookie with Insurance, 16v10 and 16v9 indices only.

  11. #11
    Trapper
    Guest

    Trapper: Backcounting

    It would be interesting to see how Hi-Opt II and KO preferred compared when backcounting the same game.

  12. #12
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Backcounting

    A comparison like this wouldn't work in backcounting since a large spread really doesn't help backcounters. Hi-Opt II ace & full indexes should beat KO Pref by about 17-18% in win rate.

    > It would be interesting to see how Hi-Opt II and KO
    > preferred compared when backcounting the same game.

  13. #13
    AutomaticMonkey
    Guest

    AutomaticMonkey: Which is held constant?

    The max bet or the min bet? Increasing your spread by increasing the max bet is a disturbing development to say the least. With backcounting your spread is technically infinity.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.