I could have done something wrong. But I don't think that's it. This is a canned CVCX Sim. I think deck resolution is set when you run the Sim. I can't see anything in the viewer where you would adjust this. Thanks for trying.
> The Zen 1998 version is count per quarter
> deck. Did you use quarter deck resolution in
> CVCX for the indexes?
> I could have done something wrong. But I
> don't think that's it. This is a canned CVCX
> Sim. I think deck resolution is set when you
> run the Sim. I can't see anything in the
> viewer where you would adjust this. Thanks
> for trying.
Then your questions is the same as mine below of which I don't think the answer is correct but there is no way for me to confirm.
> ...I ran those exact same games on CVCX with
> 2D DAS (no surrender), 66% pen 1:8 spread
> but no forced bet ramp and I got the
> following cSCORES: Zen=70.34 and
> Hi-Lo=74.26.
Somewhere in all this mess, someone pointed out that "zen 98" is not the same as the original zen with full indices. Although the fact that zen 98 performs worse is food for thought.
Never thought this would be such a huge can of worms whem I made my original CVCX data post.
I believe there is a full zen canned sim however, although I believe it is a "heads up sim" if I recall... If you limit the sim to 2d, a 1B round sim doesn't take very long.. so that you can run exactly what you want...
> Believe me that I am not trying to argue
> either side of this...just trying to figure
> out why the results are counterintuitive (or
> where I went wrong). The amount of effort
> expended by all in wading through the
> volumes of lengthy e-mails is ridiculous
> (and I am sorry to add to this). Am I
> missing something? I hope the explanation is
> obvious to someone.
> The exact sim files used were:
> Zen 1998 Full Indexes - 04/13/04 11:23
> Hi-Lo Full Indexes - 04/04/03 06:23 [first]
> I've recorded every setting in case anyone
> wants me to e-mail them. I will not mind
> being embarrased on this one.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks