Well then what would be best for dd 50% pen no surrender DAS DOA 3:2 H17 game? I use KO with full index. I am thinking about hi opt ii with ace side count but i read that the indexes are less powerful for this one as the ace side count is only for betting purposes. So when it comes to plays like doubling 10v10 the ace is not taken in consideration. Am i right? How much extra would the EV give me for all the extra work?
Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk
You have much to learn. The ace is a very very sensitive card for a 10v10 double. A side count of aces showing a surplus of that card is very enticing.
Further, for pitch games, playing efficiency is also very important. Keep in mind, however, that in your market, you can get away with a larger spread at DD than you have previously disclosed.
The ace side count is also used for playing purposes where it is appropriate. Hiopt2?ASC will definitely have more powerful index play than KO and bet more accurately. I can't generate the graphs but Hiopt2/ASC. Using Norm's canned sims, which I think only uses the ace for betting and no playing, these are the stats for 50% pen DD, $23K BR, H17, DAS each using full indices play-all always playing two hands, optimal bets for an 8:1 spread:
Hiopt2/ASC: Avg bet 2x$55.2, $102.45/100 rounds, SD 62.054/100 rounds, 14.1% RoR, c-SCORE 43.61, CE $50.13, CE/WR 0.49, n0 22929
KO full index: Avg bet 2x$46.5, $72.90/100 rounds, SD 61.409/100 rounds, 13.3% RoR, c-SCORE 31.96, CE $36.75, CE/WR 0.50, n0 31282
Last edited by Three; 12-24-2018 at 07:22 PM.
See my posts under the title Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low.
For the shoe game, my suggestion if the player insists on balanced counts, is to use HL (High Low) with AA78mTc.
If the player does not mind unbalanced counts, then use KO with AA89mTc which is better.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 12-24-2018 at 07:07 PM.
While I am sure your intentions are good, giving categorical advice to all players of all skill levels to use your unsimmed system is bad guidance.
Even if you are correct with your analysis, there will be a minority of advantage players that adapt your offering. At best, your system can be considered by the seasoned full time AP as perhaps a way to glean a small percentage improvement in playing efficiency and having little, if any, impact to EV without improving betting efficiency.
The overall purpose of an AP is to win, not just be mathmatically correct. Much of the attributes required to be successful are outside of the count system used to determine I have an advantage.
I do support you publishing your books with the hope some minority AP players may have enough of either a genuine or intellectual interest to sim it and report back on the results. Or I would suggest, if you arer truly commited to this, then buy CVDATA and conduct your own sim, you may learn something. Needing an independent to validate may be true AFTER you have validated. I am not suggesting it is not correct, but that it does not materially improve the results for most AP's even when executed perfectly, which is of question due to the percieived added complexity.
Are you sure you can see the forest for the trees?
If you want to do something more productive, develop a betting system with effective levels of cover while maintaining adequate EV.
Improving longevity is worth so much more than improving my count.
Just saying........
Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!
Very true.
Exactly. This is what I think the best use of complexity is. Of course complexity is not the only way to achieve this goal. Some things that increase longevity can't be fine tuned by your count. But with other things, complexity allows increased longevity to be achieved at the lowest cost to EV. If you spend some of the possible EV gain from betting more at the same RoR, by not betting as much more as you can, on longevity concerns you can target things that will help longevity and other targeted concerns.
There is little loss in long term EV. Decisions are made in the shortest of terms, namely by round. When you have the matchup with a monster bet out it often makes a big difference on that round. The trouble with the long term is it takes so long to get there. Some players using weak systems in poor games that don't play much may never make the long run in their life. The nature of rare events, like getting a count high enough to make the deviation and getting the matchup, is they will stack up in a short period of time while seem to never happen for long periods of time. They rarely come at regular intervals. When you factor in, when you get that high count, much of the time you will get a bunch of rounds in at the high count that makes this nature of rare events even more true for counting cards.
It is your call if you want to play for the long run or make the most of short run opportunities with big bets out. I try to be prepared to make the most of every max bet opportunity. After all, how hard is it to memorize more indices? A little bit of time one day prepares you to make the most of those rare max bet opportunities for the rest of your life. I think we wait too long to get our max bet out to waste any of the opportunity. But that is just me.
Bookmarks