Hi Econ,
I have been analyzing the conditions of your game using CVData. According to the analysis, for 8D, H17, DOA, DAS, SPA1, SPL3, NS, 6/8 using 22 indices (R22) and play-all WITHOUT Lucky Ladies,
I obtained the following SCOREs:
1) Hi-Lo
Spread 1-16: 8.403
Spread 1-20: 10.147
2) CAC2
Spread 1-16: 9.709
Spread 1-20: 11.678
Clearly, the conditions without any kind of "Wonging" are terrible for either of the two systems.
However, as can be seen from the SCOREs, CAC2 is 15%/16% better than Hi-Lo.
For "Lucky Ladies" (LL), we should consider two indices: EM (EV Maximizer) and RA (Risk Averse).
Using EM is not recommended, at least with Hi-Lo, even though the advantage in this index is approximately 1.3%.
1) Hi-Lo + LL
a) EM = +4
Spread 1-16: 7.508
Spread 1-20: 8.235
As you can see, this index (+4) deteriorates the SCORE, so it should be avoided.
b) RA = +6
Spread 1-16: 10.021
Spread 1-20: 11.237
Therefore, for these conditions and Hi-Lo, the RA-index = +6 should be used.
Let's see what happens with CAC2:
2) CAC2 + LL
a) EM-Index
Spread 1-16: 11.010
Spread 1-20: 11.839
b) RA-Index
Spread 1-16: 12.958
Spread 1-20: 14.218
While it is true that both indices can be used, it is correct to use the RA index.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
I missed an important detail. The pen on that game is bad. Probably less than $10 an hour for the side bet, and terrible return on the main game. I guess you could wong and get an acceptable return on the main, with a little bit extra from the side bet. So, the EV on that game is pretty bad, although they don't seem to be watching it which is a big plus.
The Cash Cow.
Hi Cacarulo,
Big thanks for sharing your analysis, very interesting! I didn't know about those two indices (EM & RA), but i'll do my research on that. It shows the importance of considering variance for optimal play. I will definitely buy CVData.
Maybe just a last question :
What would you consider a decent/acceptable SCORE ? I know there is probably no universal answer to that, but i'm just curious to know if there is a rule of thumb. It'll also help me set my wonging strategy.
Last edited by Econ; 05-14-2024 at 08:19 AM.
Imagine what you just did? CaraCULO? Like vaffanculo?! Bad. Worse than sayin Don Caca’ (as Italians abbreviate names affectionately… Cacarulo becomes Caca’). Dont wanna see Caraculo again in public spaces. Now to your question. Don Cacarulo cant give an answer regarding his CACA system. I asked him too.
Then I saw a post of his. He said first 1 billion hands tested. Then he restated 10 billion hands were necessary for a good test. Probably the 1-bill test failed to show success. Only the 10-bill test showed success.
I can guarantee Don Cacarulo has not finished his test in casino. One billion hands takes some 3000 years to play 1000 hnds a day, 365 days a year. I know only one man to live that long - Don “Lucky” Vito. His age always gives him validation in any argument. “ I know this stuff before you was born!” you can hear him say.
It all depends on the casinos you have access to. That game you described, although it's horrible, with a bit of backcounting, a two-hand game, and the LL bet as a bonus, is playable.
Acceptable SCOREs depend on many things, but for a play-all game, we're talking about 25 and up. Anyway, it's very personal.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Bookmarks