He is applying theory backwards then. Making a conclusion (KO with all the extra "goodies" will beat HOII w/ ASC) and *then* running an experiment looking for data points that validates his claim. He is attempting to cherry-pick. This is *not* scientific at all. Period! No questions asked!
We, as researches (both academic and amateur): observe phenomenon, research past data points, and look at previous experiments. New ideas are born out of refutation and validation. Both are necessary for a sound argument. bjanalyst has failed to demonstrate capacity of performing basic research (anyone looking to develop a new system, I recommend reading The Theory of Blackjack 6th ed. by Griffin!) Not only that, but the up-most ignorance of scientific research is demonstrated when the claim that an increase in CC for specific hand match-ups concludes that a particular system "beats" another system, where the mechanics of this so-called increase in CC fails to demonstrate how such increase changes overall EV per round. Don and Norm both are the top dogs who can explain why such thinking is flawed.
Anyway, the overall issue has been pointed out. bjanalyst is not someone who needs to be spouting off nonsense. No only that, the blatant cherry-picking and tuning of dependent variables of his system to validate an already refuted claim shows dishonesty on his part.
Why does Norm allow this thread to go on? This needs to go to the Voodoo section. Period.
Very well put. I have a problem moving this to voodoo as it's not totally nutcase, albeit the rationales are filled with potholes and the constant "math" postings are all inexact (and extremely repetitive). And I don't think I should close it as it doesn't break any rules, even though it's truly boring. But, if enough folk think this should be moved, I'll do so. It really belongs in a subscription forum where pontifications can be discussed without punishing visitors.
Last edited by Norm; 02-18-2019 at 05:41 PM.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Thinking about this. I don't call it voodoo -- I call it the Disadvantage Forum. Perhaps we could come up with a new name, like "Bad Ideas" that would include a wider range of topics of little practical interest to APs. Obviously you could gain a theoretic advantage with such. And we need discussions about avenues of investigation that could be of use in niche areas like oddball side bets. I'm open to other forum names.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Last edited by seriousplayer; 02-18-2019 at 06:47 PM.
I will include an exhibit from Gronbog's sims with just the HL full indices, my KO system and HO2 w ASC. For play all my KO system almost closed the entire gap with the HO2 w ASC. How is that a failing miserably. Also I did not include many negative indices whereas the HO2 w ASC has its full set of indices. If I include more negative indices the story for the play all would have been different. And my KO system beat that HO2 w ASC for the back counting which is what I designed the system for in the first place. So I have a system that came very close for the play all mainly because not many negative indices included and beat that HO2 w ASC for back coning and to you that is failing miserably? I am not sure what your definition of success is.
Also I stated that sims only show theoretical power. You neglected the other times shat should be considered when choosing a count system which are Accuracy, Camouflage Plays and side counts possible helping with side counts. I mentioned these benefits in details in pervious posts so I will not repeat myself here - refer to previous posts for details if you are interested.
Finally these sims were for the NO Late Surrender game. If LS is included, I predict that my KO system will leave the HO2 w ASC in the dust.
l will attach an exhibit to this showing that my KO system beats the HO2 w ASC in EVERY SINGLE LS decision and the BC of my KO system outperforms the HO2 w ASC by an even greater with LS EoR than with no LS EoR. So with both PE and BE increasing with LS the only conclusion is that my KO system will trounce the HO2 w ASC when LS is offered.
So your definition of failure is that my KO system is a failure because of a very small theoretical SCORE gap with the HO w ASC for the NO LS game when my system did not include many negative indices and that fact that my system beat the HO2 w ASC for back counting does not matter and does not count. Also forget about accuracy, camouflage and help with side counts and totally ignore the LS game performance which is the game you should be playing anyhow. You have a very strange definition of failing miserably.
My KO system was designed for back counting and it succeeded in back counting so how is that failure. My system was never designed for the play all game yet still did very will with play all.
So the first exhibit shows that my KO system won in six of the scenario and lost in only 3 and by small amounts and is because of a lack of many negative indices in my system for the Play ALL game. But in your mind none of that counts. My system is a utter failure in your mind despite that sims showed my system won 6 out of 9!
KO no LS vs LS (1).jpg
KO no LS vs LS (2).jpg
Last edited by bjanalyst; 02-18-2019 at 09:01 PM.
My posting are repetitive because the readers of this form ask the same questions over and over and over again and so I answer them. If they actually read the previous posts then they would not have asked these repetitive questions. I should just tell them to refer to previous posts.
Maybe it is a good idea for you to STOP asking the same questions over and over and over again that I already answered. I am too nice answering questions that I already answered. I suggested in a previous post that I should just give a one or two sentence answer and say refer to previous posts for your answer and to please read pervious posts before asking question that was already answered before.
that I already answered over and over and over
You still don't get it. The advantage is not in the playing indices especially for shoe games. You are wasting time just trying to add more negative indices to KO. You can add more indices to your KO system but it doesn't guaranteed that it will increase SCORE. Remember to add late surrender this time to the simulation. I don't think Gronbog simulated the Hi-OPT II ASC with full indices anyway. I think he simulated Hi-OPT II ASC and your KO system with the same amount of indices. If Hi-OPT II ASC is simulated with full indices the SCORE would be even higher. Also, you can't force indices in KO if the full set of indices for KO is only 74 you can't make it 100 indices. It is still a fair comparison in that situation.
Bookmarks