Norm Wattenberger: REKO - Another simplified KO strategy

[Norm Wattenberger]

None of this matters much. But, if you calculate TC one way when you create indexes and calculate another way when you use them, precision can be reduced. The point of any sim, including an index generation sim, is to duplicate as much as possible the actual way a person plays.

> I am aware if the index numbers were generated using
> flooring and the TC's are rounded the precision will
> be off,but what if the index numbers were generated
> using rounding also? Does it still matter if we divide
> by fractions of a whole deck?

> thanks,
> Brick

[Cacarulo]

> I ran five billion round comparisons of KO Preferred
> and REKO. Note: all KO sims I've run ignore the
> betting ramps in the book and use the superior optimal
> ramps. So they SCORE higher than the book. I also use
> the DAS strategy mods. I don't know how many KO users
> actually use these since they are not in the BS charts
> in the book. They are mentioned in a footnote on a
> later page.

> Below are two charts. The first compares KO and REKO
> for S17, DAS, 16 spread for all reasonable
> penetrations. KO is the green line. However, the lines
> are so close you can barely see a glimmer of green
> above the red line. The second chart is for Surrender.
> Here you can see some separation of the lines at high
> penetration, partticularly at 26 cards cut off. Alas
> that game is essentially extinct.

> CVCX Online

Thanks!. It seems that there's not much difference between one or the other. What's the difference in SCOREs? Sometimes the curves show a tiny difference when in fact the SCOREs are different by a 10% which is not so tiny.
How about the CBS+Ins sim?

Thanks again.
Cac

[Norm Wattenberger]

If there were a 10% difference, there would be a large gap between the lines.

> Thanks!. It seems that there's not much difference
> between one or the other. What's the difference in
> SCOREs? Sometimes the curves show a tiny difference
> when in fact the SCOREs are different by a 10% which
> is not so tiny.
> How about the CBS+Ins sim?

> Thanks again.
> Cac

[Zenfighter]

There is a gain; it just isn't much when you add in all the other factors.

Only on paper, Norm. In order to capitalize on quarter?s estimates you will need also to include into the equation the conversion factors, that is, tricky divisors and/or difficult multipliers. The final result is crystal clear, at least, for human beings playing live games under pressure.

Advocating the employment of ? estimates in multi-deck-play is basically irresponsible. After double checking your c-Score?s chart, where the four cases (full, half, quarter and exact) were tested against each other, I do not have the shadow of a doubt that we?re here again, at Parker?s pages, dealing with another ?pearl.?

Regards,

Zf

[Francis Salmon]

Would you agree that 5.5,4.5,3.5,2.5 and 1.5 are all tricky divisors?
Would you also agree that 2,3,4,6,7 and 8 are easy mulipliers?
I assume the answer is yes to both questions.
So,why do you think that advocating 1/4 resolution for the end of the shoe is irresponsible?

Francis Salmon

[Sun Runner]

Now that Snyder has verified for you that it it don't really matter all that much, what are you going to do now?

You should have known he would though. Ever read his stuff? He is the king of 'less is more' when it comes to true counting and index play.

He'll be happy to know that I agree with him in this regard.

I don't pretend to know how the MIT deal works, but I think I heard they had a basic strategy based around one index .. +2. Why would a team that rounded indices that hard try and micro-manage a true count clear to +7?

I'm sure I don't know.

[MJ]

> Now that Snyder has verified for you that it it don't
> really matter all that much, what are you going to do
> now?

If Don, Arnold, ZF, and Norm all agree that works for me! :-)

MJ

[Don Schlesinger]

> If Don, Arnold, ZF, and Norm all agree that works for
> me! :-)

LOL!! As if 1, 3, and 4 weren't already adequate.

Don

[Francis Salmon]

> If Don, Arnold, ZF, and Norm all agree that works for
> me! :-)

> MJ

You should keep in mind that these are all champions of vulgarisation (Snyder Red Seven and Hilo-lite,Don Ill18 and Norm Reko). They pass their time saying "it doesn't matter".
None of them makes his living by playing Blackjack.
All the professionals I know think otherwise.
But anyway, maths has nothing to do with democracy but very much with logic and you rightly said that Norm's claim that Reko and KO as well as full,half and quarterdeck resolution in hilo have the same score defies logic.
Cacarulo (a name that is usually cited to support a claim) is in clear disagreement with Norm about Reko.He thinks the score is at least 10% worse than normal KO and this casts a serious doubt on the credibility of Norms graphs.

Francis Salmon

[Norm Wattenberger]

Page 8 of Ken Uston's SS Count "The use of most strategy decision numbers has a minimal effect on win rates."

The Uston SS Count has only six indexes for shoe games including Insurance.

[Cacarulo]

> Cacarulo (a name that is usually cited to support a
> claim) is in clear disagreement with Norm about
> Reko.He thinks the score is at least 10% worse than
> normal KO and this casts a serious doubt on the
> credibility of Norms graphs.

Francis,

Where did you see my disagreement with Norm? What I said about the 10% is that curves doesn't say anything about the "real" difference between one system or the other. The gaps doesn't say how much of a difference do we have. In other words, I prefer the raw numbers (SCOREs) but that's my point of view.
Asking him for 5-billion sims is a way to confirm the accuracy of his findings.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Francis Salmon]

Anyway,I had the feeling you didn't quite get the answers you were looking for whatever the reason.
Me too I have troubles reading his graphs.It's like a coded language.

Francis Salmon

[Norm Wattenberger]