I'd have never guessed! :-)
Don
I'd have never guessed! :-)
Don
We have sims purporting to show that Zen's Insurance advantage over Halves (Doubled) is so large, that it turns an across-the-board disadvantage into an across-the-board advantage.
Can this be?
Is this how one should look at the issue:?
Key card tags in play for Insurance index:
Ace: Zen -1 Halves -2
10 Zen -2 Halves -2
9 Zen 0 Halves -1
Most important thing for Insurace is knowledge of 10's
For this, Halves is worse two ways: counts ace same as 10, and counts 9 in with 10's, so the 10's richness can be "polluted" with excess aces and 9's.
Zen will never be "polluted" by 9's , and excess aces will only pollute at half the rate of Halves.
So Havles will have you taking Insurance when you shouldn't, and with bigger bets out there.
6dks, s17, das, spl3, spa1, 5/6, Catch 22 as per SBA
TCs = floored down
TC resolution = ? deck
Halves -1 .5 1 1 1.5 1 .5 0 -.5 ?1 (adjusted per full deck)
Zen -1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 (adjusted per full deck)
1000 Million rounds for each one.
Software used: CVCX
Bet spread K.B Av.B %W/L $/100 SD/100 RoR N0 DI SCORE
HALVES
PA Opt.(1-12) 740 33.69 1.13 38.00 638.55 13.5 26328 6.16 37.97
PA Opt.(1-16) 837 33.96 1.30 44.00 666.02 13.5 22722 6.63 44.00
ZEN
PA Opt.(1-12) 743 32.79 1.12 36.79 585.26 13.5 27215 6.06 36.74
PA Opt.(1-16) 838 33.06 1.29 42.71 656.86 13.5 23417 6.53 42.70
Sincerely
Zenfighter
Halves figures double-checked, already:
Cacarulo?s software: (half deck estimation with tags doubled)
1-12 $38.04 $37.97 (CVCX) dif = $0.07 (due to the length of both sims)
1-16 $43.96 $44.00 (CVCX) dif = $0.04 (same as above)
Noticeable discrepancies with Zen?s SCORES. Possibilities:
1) I?ve done something strange with the Zen?s settings.
2) He has done something strange with the Zen?s settings.
3) There is something strange with CVCX and the Zen count.
4) There is something strange with Cac?s one and/or SBA and the Zen count.
Food for thought.
Zenfighter
I ran the same sims that Cac ran with CVData. Surely enough the same conclusions were reached. I also generated new indexes with CVData and ran the sims again. The Halves sims improved slightly and beat Zen in some cases. However, the difference was tiny. As Cac ran twice as many rounds I would go with his sims. In any case, Halves and Zen with these rules and penetration appear to perform very closely indeed.
> I ran the same sims that Cac ran with
> CVData. Surely enough the same conclusions
> were reached. I also generated new indexes
> with CVData and ran the sims again. The
> Halves sims improved slightly and beat Zen
> in some cases. However, the difference was
> tiny. As Cac ran twice as many rounds I
> would go with his sims. In any case, Halves
> and Zen with these rules and penetration
> appear to perform very closely indeed.
Thanks Norm for verifying the sims.
Sincerely,
Cac
Bookmarks