Originally Posted by
dogman_1234
That's your job. Literally. If you have a system, you need to provided some context as to what the reader is to expect when using said system. All other information is useless to us.
Repeating the data as nauseam does nothing to convince anyone.
Also, please read Griffin chapeter 3. He provides a chart to show where most of your gains will be. Notice the hard totals from 12-16 for dealer up-card T plus 13 vs dealer up-card 2-6. That is where most of your playing gains will be.
Okay. However, simply using CC does nothing from a win-rate perspective. What is the average expectation for each deviation as well as their respected probabilites? What can we expect with hitting/standing/doubling hard 16 vs T? CC gives us no indication as to what our respected return is. Simulations can.
Invocation of 'common sense' as a premise for your argument is weak. Why not use a 5 vs all count for hard 16 vs T? Why not use an Ace vs Face count for hard 10/11 doubles? Those are also 'common sense' approaches. And, if it is 'common sense', then it should be easy for you to sim your ideas. So, yes, a sim is needed. What is your aversion to running a Monte Carlo? Can't you do that in Excel?
Because, as I have said *multiple time already*, the burden of proof falls upon you! No one here thinks your system is the next greatest thing since sliced bread. They are comfortable with what they have as of now. If YOU sim your system and prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that is outperforms all other systems under the given win rate (NOT CC!), then we may be more invested in your idea. Until then, run a sim for your system.
And how do you know there are the "most powerful" out of all other indices? And please don't invoke the CC nonsense. We want to know win-rate/expectation.
Bookmarks