Maxim: BJA3 TABLE D2 error?

[Maxim]

Hi Don,

Page 507, line 3 from bottom (Splitting DAS, S17)
3,3 vs 2
m1=0.2636; m2=0.1563; m6=0.2899; m8=0.2936
---------
It looks like m2 = 0.1563 is wrong value. Can you, please, confirm. Thanks.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Hi Don,

> Page 507, line 3 from bottom (Splitting DAS,
> S17)
> 3,3 vs 2
> m1=0.2636; m2=0.1563; m6=0.2899; m8=0.2936
> ---------
> It looks like m2 = 0.1563 is wrong value.
> Can you, please, confirm. Thanks.

Sigh. It certainly looks wrong. I'll ask Cacarulo what the number should be.

Thank you.

Don

[Cacarulo]

> Hi Don,

> Page 507, line 3 from bottom (Splitting DAS,
> S17)
> 3,3 vs 2
> m1=0.2636; m2=0.1563; m6=0.2899; m8=0.2936
> ---------
> It looks like m2 = 0.1563 is wrong value.
> Can you, please, confirm. Thanks.

The value is correct. FYI, it's calculated as the difference between splitting (SPL3) and hitting when NO cards are removed from the pack (2D in this case):

Standing  =  -29.41154902068323% 

Hitting   =  -14.17287807047946% 

Doubling  =  -56.68496946749039% 

Spl1      =  -14.13835085697807% 

Spl2      =  -14.04611041856585% 

Spl3      =  -14.01660295866246% 

 

m2 = Spl3 - Hitting = -14.01660295866246% - (-14.17287807047946%) = 0.15627511181700% 

Hope this clarifies your concern.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Don Schlesinger]

> Hope this clarifies your concern.

Happy to hear it! Thanks.

Don

[Maxim]

Hi Cacarulo,

Thanks for confirmation, but I still do not understand why the curve changes its direction for this decision? So, interpolation method to find m for 3,4,5 etc decks would not work.

[Cacarulo]

> Hi Cacarulo,

> Thanks for confirmation, but I still do not
> understand why the curve changes its
> direction for this decision? So,
> interpolation method to find m for 3,4,5 etc
> decks would not work.

The problem is that you are expecting linearity. Why do you think we decided to calculate "m" directly instead of going by the interpolation method?

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Maxim]

I'd rather expect curve moving it the same direction, not being linear. It is just the only case I found, that direction of progression changes. So, I was curious about the reasons. Also, I wonder how close m can be found for other number of decks from quadratic equation.
For example: Hitting Hard 12 vs 2 (S17).
m2=4.2122 / m6=4.0297 / m8=4.0071 =>
.5720833333e-2*x^2-.9139166667e-1*x+4.372100000
m3=4.1494 / m4=4.0981 / m5=4.0582 / m7=4.01268
How far this from real?

Maxim.

[Cacarulo]

> I'd rather expect curve moving it the same
> direction, not being linear. It is just the
> only case I found, that direction of
> progression changes. So, I was curious about
> the reasons. Also, I wonder how close m can
> be found for other number of decks from
> quadratic equation.
> For example: Hitting Hard 12 vs 2 (S17).
> m2=4.2122 / m6=4.0297 / m8=4.0071 =>
> .5720833333e-2*x^2-.9139166667e-1*x+4.372100000
> m3=4.1494 / m4=4.0981 / m5=4.0582 /
> m7=4.01268
> How far this from real?

That could be a good approach for the play (hitting vs standing) that you mentioned but not when splitting is involved. Splitting is a very complicated play in terms of Ev.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo