Uston APC KING OF ALL
I was only talking about the first three, not the last two after ditto. I agree hi-opt II is strong, and I know nothing about AO2. Uston SS has a weak PE, the count I use is better for playing. Uston APC has a strong PE. I'm not sure what ur saying.
I cant see halves outperforming UstonSS any more than something negligible. I'm not familiar w/Brh-1, I assumed it had lower than a .99 BC (safe assumption yes?). It's performance must be due to a very high PE and IC. Hi-opt II beats it only w/the side-count--and thats because it has a respectable BC, coupled w/an extremely high PE and IC. And that really goes back to the original question. In multi-deck, how much BC would you give up for a gain in PE and IC--and how much gain?
Also, BC is still the most important aspect. If you don't play w/full indices, UstonSS may be a lot closer to the top. I think a lot of the information you find assumes I-18 Fab 4 only. So right there, ur giving up what, 5% of the total gain of the system? That's not gonna be an even distribution tho--ur gonna be given up a lot more in Hi-opt II than in UstonSS.
Last edited by Boz; 02-04-2013 at 01:25 PM.
Assuming K units are bet in all favorable conditions, and 1 unit is bet otherwise the gain from counting is approximately:
[8(K-1)*BC+5(K+1)*PE]/1000 in units per hand. These figures are from The Theory of Blackjack, p.48, and are for single deck games. In those games BC and PE are about equally important for a 1-4 spread according to this formula. As more decks are added BC increases in importance and PE diminishes in importance.
That's actually what I meant - AOII counts the 9 and does worse than Hi-Opt-II. Uston SS does not have a good IC - in true count mode brh-I wins each time. And believe me, it took me a few weeks pouring over my sim data to actually convince myself how a count with such a 'poor' BC 98.8% kept beating Halves and SS.
I will bet anyone who does a fair sim will get the same result.
Brh.
PE is a relative term that describes how efficient a count is compared to basic strategy. To get actual gain you need to run the numbers through the formula.
A player using dealer strategy is playing at about 5% disadvantage. Playing basic strategy that player is nearly even with the house to about -0.5% or so depending on deck number, rules, etc. That's a lot of gain and explains why basic strategy is so important.
A player in a single deck game playing even with the house and flat betting will gain about .7% using Hilo, and about .85% using HiOpt2, data from Braun's Winning Blackjack with penetration @ 75%.
Gain with multiple decks is less, depending on the number of decks, rules, and penetration.
Last edited by mofungoo; 02-05-2013 at 10:58 AM.
Probably because they are calculated estimates and are subject to statistical errors. There are probably standard deviations that should be considered along with these estimates? Both of the simulators I use give the standard error for the numbers they report, so error stacking may come into play.
Last edited by mofungoo; 02-05-2013 at 12:01 PM.
"A player in a single deck game playing even with the house and flat betting will gain about .7% using Hilo, and about .85% using HiOpt2, data from Braun's Winning Blackjack with penetration @ 75%.
Gain with multiple decks is less, depending on the number of decks, rules, and penetration."
Isn't that exactly what I said? As far as deeply dealt single deck games, I played in such a game last week. Good games are out there.
Last edited by mofungoo; 02-06-2013 at 06:17 AM.
Bookmarks