Brick: Why is flooring better?

[Brick]

Random poster asked this question on the beginners page but I believe it was never answered(thanks to Francis)just kidding.

Why is flooring better when used to run simulations?

[Cacarulo]

> Random poster asked this question on the
> beginners page but I believe it was never
> answered(thanks to Francis)just kidding.

> Why is flooring better when used to run
> simulations?

Flooring is as good as Rounding but it depends on the system used. For Hi-Lo flooring is better and it has to do mostly with the insurance index (the most important play). In the case of flooring the index is +3 and in the case of rounding the index is +4.
It can be shown for this play that the gain is better when flooring.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Brick]

Thanks,using floored index numbers seem to have an adverse effect on risk-adverse. In other words flooring tells use to double down before we actually reached(if you will)the precise index numbers. What's your opinion on this?

[Brick]

"floored index numbers have an adverse effect on risk-adverse."

The above statement is correct.

[Cacarulo]

> Thanks,using floored index numbers seem to
> have an adverse effect on risk-adverse. In
> other words flooring tells use to double
> down before we actually reached(if you
> will)the precise index numbers. What's your
> opinion on this?

Why do you think that? What have precise index numbers -which are EV maximized- have to do with risk-averse indices?

Sorry for the delay in the response.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Don Schlesinger]

> "floored index numbers have an adverse
> effect on risk-adverse [averse]."

> The above statement is correct.

No, it isn't.

Don

[Brick]

> Why do you think that? What have precise
> index numbers -which are EV maximized- have
> to do with risk-averse indices?

Because if we round our true tc up and the index numbers are floored ,we can create conditions where we are actually betting agressively,which is a different(adverse)approach than risk averse.

thanks.

[Cacarulo]

> Because if we round our true tc up and the
> index numbers are floored ,we can create
> conditions where we are actually betting
> agressively,which is a
> different(adverse)approach than risk averse.

I think I understand now but the answer is not that easy. First, not every index can be risk aversed and second, there are some plays like 88vT where the RA-index is lower than the EM-index. So in this case flooring would be better.

Is that what you mean?

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Don Schlesinger]

> Because if we round our true tc up and the
> index numbers are floored, we can create
> conditions where we are actually betting
> agressively, which is a
> different(adverse)approach than risk averse.

Why would you round your TC up, if you're using floored indexes? You need to USE the TC in the same manner that the indexes for those true counts were created in the first place. If your floored departure index for a play is, say, +3, and you calculate your TC to be +2.9, you DON'T make the play!

Don

[Brick]

I'm not concerned about the rare situation of RA being lower. See my comment below for a better understanding. Thanks for the insight.

[Brick]

> Why would you round your TC up, if you're
> using floored indexes?

As you know most of us card counters do not play like computers,many times we have raised bets when the tc is not the exactly 3. An example is 150 cards have been dealt and we calculate the an rc of 9 be a tc of 3.

>You need to USE the TC in the same manner that the indexes for those true counts were created in the first place. If your floored departure index for a play is, say, +3, and you calculate your TC to be +2.9, you DON'T make the play!

This is why I feel it's important to know what type of index numbers have been simmed and get as close to the TRUE true count as possible.

What type of indexing did you use for your older versions of BJA in regards to the Ill 18. Have the index numbers changed much since you now use flooring?

Thank you, Don and Cacarulo for some intertesting conversation.

[Don Schlesinger]

> As you know most of us card counters do not
> play like computers, many times we have
> raised bets when the tc is not the exactly
> 3.

This is a discipline thing! I understand that players sometimes do foolish things. But, I don't think that's what we're discussing here, is it?

> An example is 150 cards have been dealt
> and we calculate the rc of 9 to be a tc of
> 3.

Well, if your mind is telling you that there are 162 cards remaining, and the RC is 9, and your index is +3, then you DON'T make the play. Or, at least I don't make the play; I don't know what you do. :-)

> This is why I feel it's important to know
> what type of index numbers have been simmed
> and get as close to the TRUE true count as
> possible.

Players using a count system should know what method of calculating the indices has been used and should use thast same method while reckoning the TC at the table. All I can do is say that over and over again.

> What type of indexing did you use for your
> older versions of BJA in regards to the Ill
> 18.

Truncating.

> Have the index numbers changed much
> since you now use flooring?

Define "much"! None changed by more than one. But, then, you'd know that if you had both BJA2 and BJA3 -- so which one are you guilty of not having, and why?! :-)

> Thank you, Don and Cacarulo for some
> interesting conversation.

Any time.

Don