You guys make going off on a tangent seem secant nature. HO!
(alas, stolen....)
Last edited by Math Demon; 08-07-2013 at 05:11 AM.
.
To NFL newbies: Please perform your own analysis. Confirm any stats presented. Draw your own conclusions.
Handicapping is EXTREMELY hard! All statistical evidence (and game insights) may indicate strongly a specific outcome, winner, or continuing trend; but a turn-over, a missed field goal, an erroneous call, a key injury, etc. can easily change the outcome, the margins, and/or the totals. Division rivalry games and games with playoff implications are highly unpredictable.
.
.
To NFL newbies: Please perform your own analysis. Confirm any stats presented. Draw your own conclusions.
Handicapping is EXTREMELY hard! All statistical evidence (and game insights) may indicate strongly a specific outcome, winner, or continuing trend; but a turn-over, a missed field goal, an erroneous call, a key injury, etc. can easily change the outcome, the margins, and/or the totals. Division rivalry games and games with playoff implications are highly unpredictable.
.
Kripton,
Best option would be to generate your own set based on your game rules and count, but it doesn't sound like you have a program to do that. Next best option: I'm certain the indices in Modern Blackjack would serve you better than what you're using, since they are generated for YOUR count, not HiLo, and are risk adverse. How much better - I do not know. Likely not drastically.
ENHC numbers are not provided, so you will have to do some research to find out by about what magnitude the appropriate plays are affected, and make that adjustment to those indices.
So -- how many indices are you actually using from that chart? You have all of the TC-equivalent series of RCs, based on decks remaining to a half deck resolution, memorized for each index play? That is an incredible amount of memorization...
Last edited by Mr. White; 08-08-2013 at 01:53 AM.
"I did it for me..... I liked it. I was good at it...and I was...really...I was alive..."
Thanks Mr. White... well i do remember most of them basically the one above TC >= -1 , it took me almost two year's to play very fast and memorized them all while playing..
I don't know if it's the optimal way but i will centrally try to use the one listed in Modern Blackjack book ,
I have just order Part I and II.
The best way is to probably to run a SIM and find out , but i don't have CVDATA to confirm it.
Perhaps some one in this forum already done that .
Need a TKO expert on this one
How a 21st Century Degenerate Card Counter sees himself...
h7A84485B.jpgBeautiful-Lions-Picture-for-Desktop-1920x1200-7.jpg
"I Just Can't Wait To Be King"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-namx7pl4
simba-the-lion-king-02.jpg
.
To NFL newbies: Please perform your own analysis. Confirm any stats presented. Draw your own conclusions.
Handicapping is EXTREMELY hard! All statistical evidence (and game insights) may indicate strongly a specific outcome, winner, or continuing trend; but a turn-over, a missed field goal, an erroneous call, a key injury, etc. can easily change the outcome, the margins, and/or the totals. Division rivalry games and games with playoff implications are highly unpredictable.
.
If you do deem it worth your time to learn the new indices, may I make a suggestion?
If you are going to switch things up anyways, it would be a great time to learn to do a normal true count conversion. You already have the hard part down - the deck estimation skill.
That way, you only have 45 numbers to learn to in order to use the full index set, versus 540. And, if you have an opportunity to play something other than a six decker, you'll be able to. As you probably already know, as long as you start at IRC -24, it is just your RC/DecksRemaining, just like any balanced count. Plus, due to the pivot being located away from 0, the division is even faster/easier/more natural as you reach numbers where your big money is out (not to mention deck estimation errors are eliminated).
Of course, your RC/depth-based betting and playing is the same result if one's employing the RC conversions chart it to the resolution that you've posted, BUT this will likely make your learning curve less daunting if you're going to relearn your indices.
Either way, as you can attest to, it's a good thing when running count players get some experience and decide to upgrade to true counting their unbalanced system (and/or your method of true counting). It produces a system that recoups half the performance that the standard level 1s like HiLo lose to level 2s like Zen (not to mention the unmeasurable practical benefits of the elevated pivot point further shaving the gap.)
"I did it for me..... I liked it. I was good at it...and I was...really...I was alive..."
Bookmarks