I totally agree. What I was talking about went a little further with big bets out. Not optimal if EV is how you judge optimal. But after trying to relate it to the way other people tend to count, the high correlation between the betting count and the playing count makes this idea have little usage making it not worth pursuing. You need to have the playing index non-negative and the bet to be large. In my example I forgot to include the frequency of large bets, which would have greatly reduced that 4/10th of a penny cost per $100 bet. But for most people there would be no instance where they would have a big bet out with a playing TC of 0. Just when the TC changes a lot after the bet and before the playing decision.
My doubling playing counts may not be at all correlated to the betting TC so no move in the TC is required to be in that situation when the playing count and betting count have little correlation. Sometimes I forget how many opportunities are forfeited when you commit to a simple count or even a traditional count. Sorry everyone. I see what Bosox has been complaining about. Many of the avenues I pursue just don't exist for most players' approaches. The less complicated the approach the more the avenues to improve are closed off for you. Nothing wrong with the simple approach. It gets the money in the long run. But if you gather more info and/or use information differently opportunities are there to improve things concerning EV, CE, and more specifically changing the variance makeup concerning swings. But that small subset where any count have a big bet out and are at the doubling or splitting index this concept applies. For most that convergence of conditions is too rare to have much of an impact on results.
Bookmarks