I never claimed doubling 4,4 v 5 was the right play. My claim was and is only that in high counts doubling 4,4 v 6 is better than splitting.and tell me when you think doubling 8 vs. 5 will be superior to splitting 4,4, vs. 5.
Yes, with CVData (CVIndex)
http://pokermenteur.free.fr/images/8vs6double.png
http://pokermenteur.free.fr/images/44vs6split.png
I extrapolate the crossing near +10
Last edited by Phoebe; 06-20-2018 at 01:27 AM.
I don't see why you say that. The two red lines appear to have exactly the same slope. And it appears pretty clear to me that, by the time the 4,4 pair would get to +10 or higher, which isn't indicated on the graph, the edge would be at least identical to the hard 8 edge, which is shown.
While the differences, if any, are so small as to have no practical use whatsoever, what we really need to see are the graphs of the two plays we're discussing on one set of axes to see if, indeed, they cross at all, or simply continue together, as parallel lines. (Note that the slopes of the two red lines appear to be identical; i.e., each goes up one box vertically for three boxes horizontally.)
Don
I can see that they will cross if they continue linearly. But it looks like at TC +13 to me. Ideally access to the raw data would be required. But if I had to use a graphical extrapolation I would say they cross around an increment of at least 5 TCs (about TC +13).
What I was looking at is the splitting graph. Obviously the no split strategy doubles starting at TC +2. Therefore there is no need to put both on the same graph because they are in the splitting graph. But the no split strategy doesn't include data from results for totals of 8 that are not a pair of fours. The doubling graph contains all forms of the total of 8 but may exclude 4,4 since it should be treated separately as a pair of fours.
Don, caught you on that one. The difference from your assuming 8 doubling would be applicable is probably insignificant but you can't make that assumption. There is no assumption in the splitting graphs because only a pair of fours are doubled when the no split changes slope at TC +2 (when the nonsplits 4,4 is doubled).
A workaround, compressing TC, so mulitiply by 2
http://pokermenteur.free.fr/images/44vs6split-2.png
No-split after +13.
Bravo Three !
Don's comments indicated that when he said slope he was looking at the change in increments on the scale not overlaying the two graphs visually.
A box has the same incrementation of scale. That said his observation is wrong. For the red lines in each graph, look at the change in EV from TC 1.5 to 4.5 in the splitting graph compare to TC from 6.5 to 9.5 in the doubling graph. It should be obvious with the crossing points to the TCs that the slopes differ slightly.
Last edited by Three; 06-20-2018 at 09:17 AM.
What I said.
To help
http://pokermenteur.free.fr/images/44splitdouble.gif
Last edited by Phoebe; 06-20-2018 at 09:28 AM.
We were doing two different exercises. I was trying to compare two graphs of two different plays, while you were both (correctly) just looking at the split vs. no split graph, making the assumption that, in this case, no split had to mean double down (instead of hit). It probably would help if the green label were "no split (double instead)," for clarity.
In any event, +13 it is. Knowledge of which won't buy you two hot dogs on the boardwalk for the rest of your life!! :-)
Don
Bookmarks