BC & PE & IC Equations

iCountNTrack

Well-Known Member
#2
assume_R said:
What are the equations used to calculated BC, PE, and IC, such as for the website iCountNTrack made http://www.blackjackinfo.com/card-counting-efficiency.php ?

I assume that the BC equation has something to do with how correlated the card values are to the EoR, but that's all I got

-AR
The equations are too messy for me to type them in here. But you can find them in Theory of Blackjack. I wouldnt worry too much about these numbers they are more like guidelines, the best way to get info about the strength of a system is to run a simulation.
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#7
Sonny said:
For PE you could replace the betting EORs with the playing EORs.

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/eor/geneor.htm (Archive copy)

-Sonny-
Oh, wow, I had never heard of Playing EOR's. But now that I think about it, these playing eor's could be calculated by using full index plays with a single card removed (or an average eor, or whatever) and see how much of an effect it has. Then the correlation coefficient would be a reasonably accurate measure of PE. Looks like I need to go buy the theory of blackjack to learn some more.

But also, seems icountntrack's point about the only thing which truly matters is the simulation results is also a very valid point.

Thanks for the responses guys. Consider my knowledge expanded.
 
#8
I'm not sure if it's as straightforward with the PE as it is with the BC or IC, because as is shown by the name PE is not a straight correlation like the other two. You can get to a correlation of 1 on the BC or IC but you can't with the PE no matter what system tags you use in a single parameter count, due to interference between the effects of the different cards.

My understanding of PE is that combinatorial-analysis generated playing decisions generated after each card would yield perfect play and an effective PE of 1, and the PE you get from your counting system tells you as a percentage how good those playing decisions would be in comparison, e.g. if your decisions are 76% as good as perfect play your PE is 0.76.
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#9
Automatic Monkey said:
My understanding of PE is that combinatorial-analysis generated playing decisions generated after each card would yield perfect play and an effective PE of 1, and the PE you get from your counting system tells you as a percentage how good those playing decisions would be in comparison, e.g. if your decisions are 76% as good as perfect play your PE is 0.76.
Right, a 10-side-count system would have a PE of 1, and the question then is how is that "76%" quantitatively defined. I personally don't own the theory of blackjack so I'm not sure of the answer, or even how accurate that answer is. For example, I read somewhere (perhaps somewhere on qfit's website?) that PE is even less accurate with unbalanced counts.
 
#10
assume_R said:
Right, a 10-side-count system would have a PE of 1, and the question then is how is that "76%" quantitatively defined. I personally don't own the theory of blackjack so I'm not sure of the answer, or even how accurate that answer is. For example, I read somewhere (perhaps somewhere on qfit's website?) that PE is even less accurate with unbalanced counts.
It depends. For any system the PE is going to be different for each play.

With unbalanced counts, the PE for each play becomes much more inaccurate for negative counts, somewhat more inaccurate for plays that occur at very high counts, but even more accurate than true counting for plays that occur at the pivot point of the system. Being a lot of important plays hit right around the pivot point, unbalanced systems usually aren't too bad for playing. Also we don't have very much money down in those negative counts, so imperfections in our play aren't that costly.
 
Top