Hello colleagues. I live in Russia. Has noticed, that some indexes do not coincide in various programs. For example under Korovin's program (the Russian program) Split 2,2 against 8 we do at 3,5 count(hi lo). And at Wong with 5. Accordingly split 3 vs 8 with 5 (on Korovin), and at Wong with 4. Why there are such discrepancies? Share ideas?...Rules 6 deks and DAS.ENHC
cgm.ru
I don't know what Korovin's program is; but it's wrong.
> Hello colleagues. I live in Russia. Has noticed, that
> some indexes do not coincide in various programs. For
> example under Korovin's program (the Russian program)
> Split 2,2 against 8 we do at 3,5 count(hi lo). And at
> Wong with 5. Accordingly split 3 vs 8 with 5 (on
> Korovin), and at Wong with 4. Why there are such
> discrepancies? Share ideas?...Rules 6 deks and
> DAS.ENHC
> cgm.ru
> I don't know what Korovin's program is; but it's
> wrong.
why?
> why?
No idea. I've never heard of the program.
is TC +3 for HiLo assumes shoe game with DDAS. This number comes from David Smith's PBA.
Interesting. This means BCA may disagree with PBA - which was, at least originally, based on BCA. In any case, I get the same numbers as Wong's original numbers. These are unusual indexes - not much about them in the literature. They aren't even in Braun's Hi-Opt II tables.
> is TC +3 for HiLo assumes shoe game with DDAS. This
> number comes from David Smith's PBA.
It's common knowledge that the two is the stronger card than the three.Therefore the index for 3/3 v 8 must be higher than the one for 2/2 v 8 and Wong for once is wrong. My CA-program gives an index of 3.5 for 2/2 v 8 and 5.1 for 3/3v8. So this Korovin-program seems quite trustworthy.
Francis Salmon
> It's common knowledge that the two is the stronger
> card than the three.
You're absolutely correct--it's better for a player to have a hand of 2 than 3.
> Therefore the index for 3/3 v 8
> must be higher than the one for 2/2 v 8
Not necessarily. Though the end result of splitting 2-2 (having two hands of 2) is better than the end result of splitting 3-3 (having two hands of 3), the GAIN from splitting 3-3 might be greater. This is because an initial hand of 6 is worse than an initial hand of 4.
Using Casino V?rit?, I get an index of 5 for splitting 2-2 vs. 8 and an index of 5 for splitting 3-3 vs. 8.
The main point, however, is that splitting 2-2 does NOT produce more of a gain than splitting 3-3, since 2-2 is a better starting hand than 3-3. Splitting 3-3 allows you to "escape" the horrible starting hand of 6. Though a starting hand of 4 is not great either, it's not quite as bad as 6.
David Spence
> You're absolutely correct--it's better for a player to
> have a hand of 2 than 3.
> Not necessarily. Though the end result of splitting
> 2-2 (having two hands of 2) is better than the end
> result of splitting 3-3 (having two hands of 3), the
> GAIN from splitting 3-3 might be greater. This is
> because an initial hand of 6 is worse than an initial
> hand of 4.
Quite right. Whether the Split of 2's or 3's is at the higher index varies with both the dealer upcard and the strategy. This can be seen by looking at different counts.
> Using Casino V?rit?, I get an index of 5 for splitting
> 2-2 vs. 8 and an index of 5 for splitting 3-3 vs. 8.
Depends on the exact settings. I get +5 and +5 for rounding and +5 and +4 for flooring.
> The main point, however, is that splitting 2-2 does
> NOT produce more of a gain than splitting 3-3, since
> 2-2 is a better starting hand than 3-3. Splitting 3-3
> allows you to "escape" the horrible starting
> hand of 6. Though a starting hand of 4 is not great
> either, it's not quite as bad as 6.
Yes, defensive splits are odd. It is very difficult to come up with any 'rules of thumb' about defensive splits.
> Quite right. Whether the Split of 2's or 3's is at the
> higher index varies with both the dealer upcard and
> the strategy. This can be seen by looking at different
> counts.
> Depends on the exact settings. I get +5 and +5 for
> rounding and +5 and +4 for flooring.
> Yes, defensive splits are odd. It is very difficult to
> come up with any 'rules of thumb' about defensive
> splits.
No one is discussing the correlation of these plays. 3,3 v. 8 is a very odd index play. Naturally, the most important card to receive on a split 3 is an 8, and Hi-Lo (and virtually all counts) is incapable of telling us when we have an excess or dearth of 8s, since the 8 is not counted in all systems.
It isn't sufficient to simply generate an index number to determine the value of a departure; in addition, you have to determine whether the counted is suited to make the play in the first place.
I can't prove it vigorously, but I would argue strongly that "knowing" an index for splitting 3,3, v. 8 in Hi-Lo, or any other count, is next to meaningless and worthless.
Note, also, that, although Wong, strangely, furnishes an index ofr this play for Hi-Lo, he does no such thing for Halves, the "superior" count. What sense does that make?
Don
I had briefly consider running sims to see the difference in the indexes. But it would take tens of billions of hands, the difference is so tiny.
> I had briefly consider running sims to see the
> difference in the indexes. But it would take tens of
> billions of hands, the difference is so tiny.
I wrote to Wong, and his answer is, ostensibly, confirms exactly what I wrote:
"For doubling allowed after splitting, 3-3 vs 8 is basically a tossup, and it's not sensitive to the count. There is almost nothing to be gained by deviating from basic strategy. So any index numbers are basically worthless. I suppose I could have suppressed them for one counting system or faked some in for the other to make them look consistent, but instead I chose to go with the results generated by the software."
Don
I ran ten billion rounds each for 33v8: Always Split, Never Split and an index of +4. Following are some conclusions:
[*]Use of the index had a gain in SCORE of 0.01. That is, one penny per hour with a $10,000 bankroll at full Kelly.[*]ONE card difference in penetration has 40 times the effect on SCORE as using an index.[*]Always splitting had a loss of 7 cents per hour as opposed to Basic Strategy. I believe this makes it a candidate for a cover play since the play looks stupid, is an obvious violation of BS and costs a tiny amount.[*]The difference between indexes of +4 and +5 is immeasurably small.[*]Using an index accurate to one-tenth?s is smaller than immeasurably small - assuming such an index even exists.[/list]
I agree with Wong on all three conclusions: that the hand is insensitive to the count (as indicated by my chart in the ?way off? post,) that the index is useless and that if you really wanted to use the index, it is +4.
Disclaimer: The play is so close, 30,000,000,000 hands is not enough for absolute accuracy.
CVCX Online
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks