Practically every tweak that adds to EV will add more with full indices versus I18 and Fab4. They all compound on one another like compound interest.
Over and over and over again we get the same baseless claims, with no substantiation whatsoever.
From the very studies you quoted above: Hi-Lo, Sweet 16 and Fab 4. 6D, 75%, DAS, 4 players, Back-Count, 1-6 spread: SCORE = 38.16.
Same thing, full indices: 40.58. Increase: 6.34%. (And please note the following: ten-splits are supposed to be included in the I18, but the Sweet 16 omits them. So, the full indices gain over the I18 is even less than this value!)
Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it any more truthful. You and others may repeat ad nauseam how much more gain there is to be had by playing full indices in a shoe game, but the gain, under normal game conditions, is relatively modest.
Next, we'll be discussing again how much more gain you can get from playing a wonderful system, with ASC and full indices, compared to a simple one, with full indices (or just the I18, for that matter).
Same game as above: Hi-OptII, ASC, full indices. SCORE = 43.17. Hi-Lo, 40.58. Gain: 6.38%. Note that the fact that you back-count doesn't make a damn bit of difference, despite your claims to the contrary.
Your turn.
Don
And not nearly as strong as Tthree's count that gives him a 15% advantage without ever having to raise his bets.
Play within your bankroll, pick your games with care and learn everything you can about the game. The winning will come. It has to. It's in the cards. -- Bryce Carlson
It is not meant to be disparaging or say Hilo is in any way ineffective. It is if you use the adjectives weakest, weak, strong and strongest you must rank the popular counts by EV, SCORE or n0, CE etc. for the same spread, RoR, BR, rules and pen using optimal bets for each count. You know the things that define your win rate (EV), are used to compare them objectively (SCORE or n0), and define the certainty of BR growth (CE). If you rank them for these critical stats Hilo will rank near or at the bottom. If that doesn't merit the adjective weak then nothing does.Originally Posted by Norm
I simply went to Norm's canned sims for play-all in the CVCX tool in the BJ Resources tool bar from its link above:
Settings that don't change: 6 deck, S17,DAS,LS, spread 10, hands/hour 100, RoR 13.5, 52 cards cut off, BR $10K, playall
Stat: Hilo I18/F4; Hilo full; Percent gain
EV: $44.83; $50.32; 12.25%
c-SCORE: 45.05; 50.74; 12.6%
CE: $22.52; $25.37; 12.66%
H17,DAS,LS the rest the same:
EV: $31.12; $38.80; 24.68%
c-SCORE: 32.13; 38.63; 20.23%
CE: $16.05; $19.31; 20.31%
I didn't lie because I believed Norm's canned sims. Changed as little as possible so I can't be accused of cherry picking. I guess you are saying Norm's sims are wrong.
I am glad you corrected my speculation on backcounting. I believed the logic of what I said about backcounting so incorrect but not a lie. It surprises me but I did not sim it. I know it would even the playing field some with other counts. I didn't expect it to even the field for the number of indices for Hilo that much. It is always nice to learn something new. Thanks.
You can always somewhat glorify the usefulness of full indices by presenting conditions for games that once may have been a reality but nowadays are virtually nonexistent.
S17, DAS, LS, spread 10, hands/hour 100, RoR 13.5, 52 cards cut off.
All together, now, everybody, rush to write in where you play this game today! I provided you with my assumptions.
Don
Fact remains that on this site, some have constantly entered a thread to belittle the hiLo count directly or indirectly. A person mentions a losing session or streak or they lost a sizable portion of their bank roll and we get essays on how the swings would be less, the ride less violent and implying the Hilo player should be exploring other multi level counts. Fighting this has led to a few acting insane and getting banned.
The few who tried to suggest that the losing HiLo player should examine game selection, betting spread, BR management and other stuff rather than changing count have been drowned out by those posts suggesting that the losing player should start by changing the one level count. Heck, I am not losing but I started getting angry with myself for being too lazy to learn a multi level count. Reading some here, one can think that these multi count fellas never have a losing session and begin to wonder why they are only winning 55% of their sessions and go struggle with another count.
All over the East Coast. I won't comment on where exactly to find the pen for obvious reasons but there are games like this in almost every state in the East. Do you own scouting.
That said the gain from the rules commonly found are almost twice what I stated.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks