Technically, KO-P uses 3 index values for 6D...insurance is pivot-1.
> Another point worth mentioning is that KO-P uses 2
> index values anyhow for the 6 deck game...the key
> count and the pivot point. So, if Norm incorporates
> the compromise index for the 10 splits then that would
> still leave 2 index values. Even better the system
> would be more powerful!
> MJ
The point is to come of up with a fair general comparison that removes the biases we have all seen in Blackjack books. That is the advantage of the SCORE methodology. If someone else wishes to use a different methodology or to look at a specific situation, fine. I'm sticking with SCORE to compare two strategies in general terms. And as I often do, I present the entire spectrum of penetrations instead of selecting what looks the best.
If we were going CBS, perhaps for soft doubles. We tried 12v4 and 16vT and the index worked enough better. I'm not a big fan of CBS anyhow.
In your suggested bet ramp for 6 decks,you tell people to wait till RC -3 to raise timidly the bet.It's clear that with that rule many positive situations in the first two decks will be missed and this should be reflected in score when comparing with high low.On the other hand a bet of 5 units at RC-1 when only 1 deck is left is totally wrong but If I got you right this is not even taken into account for score which uses only objectivly optimal bets.
Am I the only to think that this is pointless and comparisons of systems should be made with suggested bet ramps?
Francis Salmon
Each chart essentially shows 105 separate five billion round sims for each strategy, one for each penetration. The same betting ramp is used throughout a sim. But each sim has an optimal betting ramp calculated for that particular sim. So the points for 26 cards shows the SCOREs for each system assuming a penetration of 26 cards and optimal betting for that penetration and simmed with five billion rounds at that penetration. The points for 27 cards gives SCOREs from five billion rounds dealt to 27 card penetration and the optimal betting for that penetration. Etc.
Your talk about optimal bets seems to contradict the inherent suggested bet ramp of the system.To clarify this,please answer the following questions,concerning the 6-decker:
1) Does the sim still bet minimum at RC-4 after 1 deck ?
2) Does the sim bet 5 units at RC-1 after 5 decks?
Francis Salmon
This is a simple running count system. It is designed for simplicity. Depth is not a concern to a running count player. Why would I have different betting ramps for different parts of the shoe? That would be stupid.
At RC-4 and 5 decks to go you have a clear edge.
With RC-1 and 1 deck to go you bet into a disadvantage.
How can I take such a system seriously?
Francis Salmon
> At RC-4 and 5 decks to go you have a clear edge.
> With RC-1 and 1 deck to go you bet into a
> disadvantage.
> How can I take such a system seriously?
How can anyone take you seriously? My sims mimic the way people actually play. People do not use different betting systems at different parts of the shoe. Francis, no one plays the way you play. And it is simply not necessary. Card counting is always a set of compromises. There is nothig wrong with compromise if advantage is still reasonable. reKO is just another system of compromises. And my sims, and Cac's sims, show that it is a valid method of play. Once again, no one agrees with your concepts of extremist precision.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks