What about Snyder's Folly, the weak version of halves (true edge) that compresses the data field so you must take things to a couple of decimals to get the same accuracy for your decisions. He should have known that compressing the data field would lead to less accuracy. You want to stretch out the data so you can make finer observations for decisions. I don't think Snyder ever recommended doubles halves which would stretch out rather than compress the data. That would have been a step in the right direction rather than the wrong direction. And truncating TCs. I never got what he thought was gained there. TC 0 bin has twice the range of all the other bins. And he combines the two highest frequency bins. That just limits what you can do and causes you to be more inaccurate on the vast majority of play.
Last edited by Three; 11-20-2018 at 02:32 PM.
I said Don was great. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth that you know I would never say? I have read Don's book many times. He states the I18 gets you the majority of the gain from all indices so that is where you should start learning indices. He never once said that is where you should end learning indices. Obviously it isn't. But eventually you get to a point of diminishing returns for the effort of learning indices. Yeah, that minuscule couple of minutes it takes to learn an index play. That tiny effort. Learn as many as you want. The ones that you will remember will be the ones you use often. That one it took a year to get the matchup with the TC required to make the deviation may be a bit fuzzy. LoL
Last edited by Three; 11-20-2018 at 07:09 PM.
All due respect to Don, this has always rubbed me the wrong way. I have never believed it is clear from BJA3 that the I18 is a starting point. To me at least, it's quite the opposite. I'm happy to be the fool here if need be but it's all there. The reader was probably saved a great deal of work. They won't be missing much!Originally Posted by DSchles, p60 BJA3
Elsewhere (eg message boards, and possibly even in BJA3 later in the text), Don has called it a starting point. But the implication in the text of the book is that the I18 is essentially all you need.
Other things people say aren't in the book are the gains, etc for using different counts. Don tried not to endorse a count but gave that information. After all they all work. You just have to do the math if you are interested in the answer. You can't expect Don to do everything for you. But he put the information in the book. You just have to reduce it to the form you desire. In this case a percentage increase for changing from on count to another. The math is simple and takes like 10 seconds on a calculator.
I understand why you were rubbed the wrong way, but I always thought that message was not written for me. I figured it was for the player who was not about to put in the work necessary to remember many more indices anyway. If I remember correctly, somewhere else in the book he states that he still uses all or almost all of the indices when he plays. There was a line about not being able to forget them or something to that effect. That was a clear signal to me that he still considered knowing the other indices worth it. I really kind of read the section you quoted as a "If the shoe fits" kind of statement.
Bookmarks