Adding AA78mTc side count to High Low

[Freightman]

That's your job. Literally. If you have a system, you need to provided some context as to what the reader is to expect when using said system. All other information is useless to us.


Repeating the data as nauseam does nothing to convince anyone.
Also, please read Griffin chapeter 3. He provides a chart to show where most of your gains will be. Notice the hard totals from 12-16 for dealer up-card T plus 13 vs dealer up-card 2-6. That is where most of your playing gains will be.

Okay. However, simply using CC does nothing from a win-rate perspective. What is the average expectation for each deviation as well as their respected probabilites? What can we expect with hitting/standing/doubling hard 16 vs T? CC gives us no indication as to what our respected return is. Simulations can.

Invocation of 'common sense' as a premise for your argument is weak. Why not use a 5 vs all count for hard 16 vs T? Why not use an Ace vs Face count for hard 10/11 doubles? Those are also 'common sense' approaches. And, if it is 'common sense', then it should be easy for you to sim your ideas. So, yes, a sim is needed. What is your aversion to running a Monte Carlo? Can't you do that in Excel?

Because, as I have said *multiple time already*, the burden of proof falls upon you! No one here thinks your system is the next greatest thing since sliced bread. They are comfortable with what they have as of now. If YOU sim your system and prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that is outperforms all other systems under the given win rate (NOT CC!), then we may be more invested in your idea. Until then, run a sim for your system.

And how do you know there are the "most powerful" out of all other indices? And please don't invoke the CC nonsense. We want to know win-rate/expectation.

Did they not also burn books during the crusades?

[lij45o6]

Did they not also burn books during the crusades?

What's the relevance of this post?

[Freightman]

What's the relevance of this post?

The relevance is that you’re wearing blinders. No offence. His theories may not yet be proven, but that in itself, is no reason to dismiss them.

[lij45o6]

The relevance is that you’re wearing blinders. No offence. His theories may not yet be proven, but that in itself, is no reason to dismiss them.

Am I actually dismissing them? Or am I asking that he provide data relevant to the discussion? Sincerely, he may have an idea worth looking imto, bu I'm not going to be goaded into running a sim for him.

[Freightman]

bu I'm not going to be goaded into running a sim for him.

So, ...........don’t.

[bjanalyst]

I just presented my findings. If you do not believe me then stick with what you have. I am not going to try to convert anyone. You make your own decisions.

I have done everyhting short of DIRECT simulations but I sort of did INDIRECT simulations in that my program I used to calculated indices I used for HL indices and every HL index that I tested, the resulting indices from my program using EoR, agreed with the published HL from simulations.

Also I showed you weighted average CC for various counts and you can see that if you arrange the counts by weighed average CC that the counts with the highest weighted Average CC also are the counts that have been determined to have the strongest playing strategy according to simulations.

So I am not just using common sense. I used Effects of Removal from Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack, 3rd edition, that were calculated to six significant figures and Don explains in his book how important EoR are and how to use them.

So I have tested my results through indirect simulation of calculated HL indices using EoR agreeing with published indices for the HL and that the order of strength of various counts using the Weighted Average CC agrees with simulation order of strength for the various counts and I used Schlesinger's proven EoR for my calculations.

So I have done everything short of direct simulations of my results. And I also showed the value of camouflage play using AA78mTc with HL.

That is all I have to say. If you don't believe me then keep on using what you have. I am not twisting anyone's arm to believe me and I do not have simulation software to do a direct simulation to prove my results.

[Freightman]

I am not twisting anyone's arm to believe me and I do not have simulation software to do a direct simulation to prove my results.

I do keep an open mind on many topics. I also lack patience in the nanner of certain presented scenarios. That being said, this is the type of theoretical discussion that I would prefer over a long afternoon, with a notepad and pastry.

Just because I’m not particularly interested at this time, does not mean that I won’t be at a future time, or that I don’t see potential merit to your ideas.

[lij45o6]

I do keep an open mind on many topics. I also lack patience in the manner of certain presented scenarios. That being said, this is the type of theoretical discussion that I would prefer over a long afternoon, with a notepad and pastry.

Just because I’m not particularly interested at this time, does not mean that I won’t be at a future time, or that I don’t see potential merit to your ideas.

Hence, why the relevance of actually providing a monte carlo sim data-sheet would be beneficial!

I would *highly* recommend that the OP (bjanalyst) obtain the CV suite sim from our site host. Could help you expand into other ideas as well. No need to program. Just plug and chug.

[Freightman]

Hence, why the relevance of actually providing a monte carlo sim data-sheet would be beneficial!

I would *highly* recommend that the OP (bjanalyst) obtain the CV suite sim from our site host. Could help you expand into other ideas as well. No need to program. Just plug and chug.

I do play with both cvdata and cvcx. Even our resident master, Dog Hand, would not be able to sim my exact game. Shortcuts and assumptions would need to be made, which would throw off the actuals. That being said, I’m happy with my results and the avoidance of ridiculous debate, such as this, that would ensue if I were to promulgate my theories.

A well respected poster on this board did suggest to me a method by which I could sim. His commentary was based on tracking performance in a team environment. My preference is to do my own thing as a solo artist, and thus, I did not incorporate the suggestions.

[lij45o6]

A well respected poster on this board did suggest to me a method by which I could sim. His commentary was based on tracking performance in a team environment. My preference is to do my own thing as a solo artist, and thus, I did not incorporate the suggestions.

Interesting. So, like a poor-man's sim basically?

[Freightman]

Interesting. So, like a poor-man's sim basically?

Not at all. What you need to learn is that sims are not the end all be all. Software can’t be programmed to anticipate every single nuance. My game has developed over many years, and it will continue to evolve. I do sim as best I can, consistently exceeding those erroneous projections.

It’s pretty clear to me that I have evoked your wrath. Suggest you concentrate your energies eksewhere, and preserve your sanity.

[Three]

Not at all. What you need to learn is that sims are not the end all be all. Software can’t be programmed to anticipate every single nuance. My game has developed over many years, and it will continue to evolve. I do sim as best I can, consistently exceeding those erroneous projections.

Hahaha. I know where you are coming from Freighter. A lot of what I do have yet to be incorporated in full system simulations. I know the results would improve a lot. I just sim what I can and know I should well outperform the errant underproduction from the limited sims. I like it that way. Having results underperform the sim is a lot less likely.