Attached are some Identities of KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc)
Identities1.jpg
Identities2.jpg
Identities3.jpg
Identities4.jpg
Attached are some Identities of KO + k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc)
Identities1.jpg
Identities2.jpg
Identities3.jpg
Identities4.jpg
I guess you are one of the mentally challenged crybabies that I discussed earlier who has a hard time multiplying and adding two small integers (k1*(5m7c) + k2*(AA89mTc) and adding to a third integer, KO. That is just too, too difficult for YOU. Don Johnson said counting is so easy a monkey could do it. So where does that put you? Enough said.
Oh wait! Now I get it. Sometimes the numbers are negative and you have to subtract instead of add. You have to perform "take away". Of course, now I know why this system is too complicated for YOU. You have problems with "take away".
Have a nice day.
Last edited by bjanalyst; 02-11-2019 at 01:48 AM.
Gronbog said he could also sim Late Surrender so I just emailed him these LS indices and values of k1 and k2 for KO with AA89mTc and 5m7c
KO AA89mTc 5m7c Late Surrender.jpg
Look, I have done all this from a better starting point and with end goals in mind than you. Simulation is the only way to get anything accurate to make the best decision when comparing combined counts. I corresponded with Don and he said the only way was via simulation but eventually answered my question about other ways to compare combined counts to decide what was better for a decision. I tried every approximation but none gave even close to an accurate assessment of which count was better. Big surprise (sarcasm emoticon), Don was right. Count Correlation tells you nothing about performance. What EoRs are useful for is a place to start when setting up a counting system. Once the cards start to be dealt all the EoRs change because the ones we know are full deck EoRs and there is no longer a full deck. Simulation shows you the overall effect that each choice of combined count has on your results. CC just shows the result on the first hand out of the shoe. It is not a shoe average over the whole shoe, and doesn't take into consideration frequency of the matchup, the frequency the index is in play and what the bet size is on average when the index is in play. These are the deciding factors in choosing a best count just like they were for choosing the I18. All those charts you are posting are meaningless when it comes to playing a shoe of BJ, because CC has nothing to do with anything that will allow you to choose the best combined count.
I used CC of various playing strategies to compare PE. I used Betting Correlation to compare BE. You need to use both. CC showed HL w AA78mTc and 5m6c beat HO2 w ASC with PE but HL was 2% below HO2 - 2*(Adef) for BC and when HL + (1/3)*(5m6c) was used SCORE gap was reduced but HL system still lost because BC was still over 1% below HO2 w ASC.
My response was under the premise that bjanalysts system is an exercise in futility. The amount of work per unit gained is less than that offered by other known systems (Think Halves, Zen, HOII w/ ASC)
I like the fact that bjanalyst called me a cry-baby who lacks the capacity to do mental arithmetic, somehow an indictment against my intelligence?
Anyway, the OP is blowing smoke, knowing his system is garbage and has nothing else to prove but to be a pompous ass. Doesn't know about the fact that the person he is insulting can keep a level two count with two rank side counts. But, we'll let him live is fantasy of feeling intellectually superior to the dogman.
He seems to be on the defence. Looks like he needs a refund on that maths degree, methinks!
I would like to explain once more how I came up with my system. First I wanted to use KO as the base primary count for the shoe game because it has a pivot of a true count of 4 and gives excellent true count accuracy near its pivot which is where your big bets are out. Next I wanted to improve betting so I choose 45m79c. I then substituted 5m7c for betting which just a slight loss on betting efficiency and playing efficiency because 5m7c is much easier to keep. Then I concentrated on PE and chose the count which maximized insurance efficiency which is how i came up with AA89mTc. So with KO, 5m7c BC is 99% and with AA89mTc insurance is 100%. Then there were more strategy gains that came free with 5m7c and AA89mTc. So let's see what happens.
No. You want to understand how accurate something is look at the standard deviation of the actual data points that a sim collects around the data points average for each decision bin. Hiopt2/ASC wins because it has a tight standard deviation around its averages. CC has no way of indicating what matters. It is just a starting point for making a system. Then you try to tighten all the decision bell curves around their averages to get a low SD for the betting or playing decision. BC is a correlation. It has nothing to do with accuracy. You want to know why your system won't beat Hiopt2/ASC look at these graphs.
Post #17:
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-at-tc-1/page2
Post #30:
https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-at-tc-1/page3
Look at the scale at the bottom of each graphs. The Hiopt2/ASC graph shows accuracy and is very tight around the average. The Hilo graph is over twice as wide with much longer tails but the BC isn't very different. That is the difference between betting accuracy and BC. The more accurate bets also allow you to bet more at the same RoR when everything else is kept equal. For example a Hilo optimal bet S17, DAS, LS, 6 deck/1 cut off with the SCORE standards for everything else other than bets is 2x1 to 2x130 and a c-SCORE of 73.90, while Hiopt2/ASC 2x14 to 2x140 and a c-SCORE of 85.75. Now all of these are for full indicesKO preferred gets 2x12 to 2x120 and a SCORE of 62.33.
This is all pointless. Again, EoRs are back of the envelop estimates of efficacy used only for the purposes of identifying possible avenues of investigation. They were brilliantly conceived. But, stop pretending that they are accurate.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
All of Gronbogs sims, Don's help, an all the other people helping you understand things in this thread and you still haven't learned anything. CC ha nothing to do with sim results. Sim results are from the interaction of many components like betting accuracy, playing decision accuracy, variance, and bet size. I am talking the interaction between all these things. The individual performance of each is meaningless. CC is even more meaningless.
Bookmarks