Tthree, for comparing system you used different betting strategy? ))
You are familiar with the researches Cacarulo on this subject? Or not? ))
vOriginally Posted by KJ
Well laugh away my friend, because yes, I AM saying sims don't reflect real world results. I have been saying this for years. Sims are a tool. They are good for comparison purposes, but they have flaws and the biggest concerns error rates.
You guys that live and die by sims and think sims are the end all answer to everything, never want to acknowledge error rate and specifically the scientifically proven and accepted concept, that more complex tasks have higher error rates. Even if its only slightly more complex like counting and subtracting two or three numbers instead of one.
You cannot 'will' this universally accepted concept away with statements like, "with enough practice I can play just as efficiently" or "I am more efficient with more complex tasks because my mind can't wander".
This concept is NOT open to negotiation, it is a proven concept, and until you sim guys join the real world, there really is no further point in this discussion. You are simply producing tainted results and drawing flawed conclusions from them and worst of all erroneously influencing others. I don't know why I bother engaging. I am the literal definition of insane.
dont quit KJ!!! Now that I am in my worst losing streak, this site makes me wonder if HiLo is outdated and things like changing counts comes into my mind but you and the fact that I was doing okay for so long makes me want to hang in there. I think a DD game with 9-11 doubling only and no double after splits is a really bad game to try and beat but I keep trying because pen is 75%. I think I should try other 6d games and seek better games then quit HiLo.
That is the lamest statement I have ever heard. You want to know what different strategies are worth you keep BR and RoR the same and bet each strategy optimally. You want to say it doesn't cost much but then you run your optimal ramp for your desired RoR and you must bet less. That is a BIG cost. This is Exactly the same as risk averse indices. All you do with risk averse indices is change a handful of indices a little and in this case you are changing most indices a little. Like I said your way would say RA indices are a small liability and of absolutely no use. Everyone in the industry knows this is a load of crap because when comparing a small change in indices you must still use optimal ramps. When you do use optimal ramps RA indices actually gain EV because while you have a lower EV on that handful of indices all the rest of your decisions make more money from the higher bets. How does changing more indices not require the same analysis to determine the cost or benefit? So either RA indices are a load of crap or you are wrong. There is no other option.
Well it is a good thing Snyder had nothing to do with developing RA indices because we would all be having lower EV and a wilder ride to the long run. It doesn't matter if you change 4 or 5 indices like with risk averse indices or you change most of your indices like we are talking here you must do the same analysis to determine benefit or cost. It you don't keep RoR the same and use optimal ramps some of the gain/cost is hidden in a change of RoR. Then when you quote the gain/loss you are missing some or most of it. As we saw earlier from BJA3 p172 your method that you use including your comparison of counting systems leaves as much as 75% of the gain hidden in RoR changes. You used this same argument about counting systems. Now you say well we aren't talking about counting systems we are talking about indices. Well the BJ world already settled that debate when RA indices were developed and the proper way to do the analysis is to bet both sets of indices for the same RoR, BR and everything else and have each bet optimally. That will put all the gain as change in EV and later after the player decides which he likes best he can decide were he wants to take that gain/loss. He can take it as EV change or RoR change or a little of both. This is the way to reduce all gain to one number so it can be quantified. If you have the gain in two places and only quote 1 as the gain you aren't quoting the actual gain.
Yes KJ. And everything means BR, RoR spread, optimal ramp, and the game being played. You are not changing the ramp. You are still using the optimal ramp. The bets may or may not be different but the ramp stays optimal. This is were you are making your mistake. You think keeping everything the same means keeping the bets the same. But to do that you have changed RoR and both systems now have different RoR's so everything is not the same. You keep the spread the same, the BR's the same, the RoR the same and still use optimal ramps so that is the same. That makes all gain/loss show up in EV change so when you quote the change it is accurate. If you understood why SCORE was such a breakthrough from a math perspective this would be clear to you. It reduces all change to EV and keep BR, RoR read and optimal bets etc constant. If you allow RoR to change the EV change does not reflect the gain/loss between the two choices. Remember RA indices were analyzed the same way and that was changing fewer indices than we are talking about here.
This is a problem some big BR players have. They play to such a low RoR that they think changes in RoR are meaningless but as when you compare the counting system analysis to your way from BJA3, 75% of the gain can be hidden in RoR change.
Well if you wanted to argue in this case that you could play faster with easier indices you might have a point but most are playing as fast as the table will allow and any infinitesimal gain in speed will rarely if ever actually change the speed of play at the table. There are already table factors that limit the speed chokepoint. The BJ world spoke to how a small change in indices should be handled when they examined changing a few indices in using RA indices and it is my way. Unless you want to argue RA indices cost you in defiance of the BJ world truths you must admit you are wrong. There is no analysis that you want to define the gain were you can have it show up in 2 places. Don realized this when he developed SCORE. And yes, I do find it pretty funny that someone as experienced as you is still making rookie mistakes when comparing changes in an effort to determine cost.
It took long enough for you to get there but you are finally there. If you play crap games because of any theoretically advantageous reason you must be prepared for the crazy ride that is part of the deal.Every system will have some crazy variance but things like game selection and number of indices are at your control and can help with that if you are uncomfortable with ebbs and flow on the way to the long run.
Of course keeping everything the same including spread and optimal ramp is the only way to reduce all gain to 1 variable so it can be defined as a single number. If you don't keep these things the same other things change namely RoR. It may be hard for some to get but that is the case. If you don't do it that way you say the gain between Hilo to Hiopt2 is 5%, like KJ does, instead of about 20%, like Don S, Norm and I do. You would also say that Speed Count trumps other counts and that RA indices have no benefit. Note the latter is just about a few indices so KJ's lame argument that indices somehow can hide gain in RoR change is obviously wrong. The basis of why RA indices work and their gain is that you can bet more at the same RoR so all bets make more. The same concept applies here. If you use more accurate indices you can bet more at the same RoR so not only do you gain from the more accurate indices but you also gain from increased bets. I can't imagine Caruculo made such a rookie mistake as to overlook this but often large BR players give advice that only applies to people in situations were they can't raise their bets because that is their situation. They are betting and spreading as much as they feel they can get away with or are penned in by table limits so for them betting more does not enter into their analysis. If you eliminate that situational oddity that is not the case. That is the problem with the advice given by some huge BR pros. They forget that most non pros can adjust bets to keep optimally betting.
+1
For this reason of KJ and I am closer to truth, than Tthree. Sims don't display real game.
p.s. I very much like to re-read books by Snyder. In them there is a lot of hidden wisdom.
Last edited by Gramazeka; 10-20-2015 at 05:02 AM.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks