Doubling A,8

[bjcount]

Are you sure about that? I just used your RA vs CVdatas(maximum ev) for 6D,DAS,S17,RSA,75%,1p,1-15(reset bets after shuffle/CHECKED)

I figured this would be the other way around. Wow Im shocked!

I should have given you the rule set for the RA indices. 6d, 4.5/6, S17, DAS, LS, Split to 4 hands, $10 unit. For sim purposes I don't check reset bets at shuffle since you should keep the same bet up at the top of a shoe as you had finished the previous one. (Although I wouldn't leave a max bet up in real play, maybe half)

The numbers you came up with are very different than my results which I posted below. Although the RA in your sim comparison had a much better win rate than the Max EV, the SD was much higher too. It may be because your using a generic 1-15 spread and not an optimal betting spread.

Here are my results:
The top sim uses the Zen RA indices with a 1-12 play all
The bottom uses Zen complete with the same 1-12 play all spread.

The SD is similar, the win rate and SCORE are higher using the RA.

If you find time let me know if you come up with the same findings with the rule set above.

BJC

 

[jack.jackson]

Even though I have CVCX, can I get your 1-12 betting strategy, just to make sure were on the same page?

10-4 on the resets.

 

[bjcount]

Even though I have CVCX, can I get your 1-12 betting strategy, just to make sure were on the same page?

10-4 on the resets.

TC+1= 1u
+2=3u
3=5u
4=6u
5=8u
6=11u
7=12u

BJC

EDIT: are you using 1/4dtc or 1dtc? I used 1dtc.

 

[bjcount]

Even though I have CVCX, can I get your 1-12 betting strategy, just to make sure were on the same page?

10-4 on the resets.

JJ
Did you ever get a chance to rerun the sim?

BJC

 

[FLASH1296]

I am perplexed

I find the sim results interesting but confusing.

Risk Aversion is of help to us mere humans.

The computer, with a big Bankroll and perfect
play should NOT benefit by being averse to risk.
It should put LESS money into play and should
win slightly less as well.

Any feedback from BJCount, et al will be appreciated.

 

[bjcount]

I find the sim results interesting but confusing.

Risk Aversion is of help to us mere humans.

The computer, with a big Bankroll and perfect
play should NOT benefit by being averse to risk.
It should put LESS money into play and should
win slightly less as well.

Any feedback from BJCount, et al will be appreciated.

IF you look back at JJ's first sim comparison on the previous page, you'll see the RA indices I posted brought in a higher win rate than the complete set of indices. The odd part is that his sims increased the SD and action/hr in the RA higher than the Max EV. I can only surmise this is due to the generic bet spread JJ used.

In my sim comparison the RA opt bet spread was used for both sims, where again the RA indices brought in a higher win rate/hr vs the complete Max EV set. This time the SD, win rate, and action/hr were more in line with each other.

I would like to see JJ's results again using the same rule set and bet spread.

I don't beliive the size of the computer's bankroll has anything to do with the results.

Just quickly reviewing some of the indices provided in CVData's version of Complete Zen, there are only 5 indices is the DAS split chart, zero indices in the 98 Zen version, and no indices for surrender plays.

If this is how Zen was originally developed than the reason why my RA sims are outperforming is crystal clear. There are over 20 DAS indices and many LS indices.

Can someone else with CVData confirm this please.

BJC

 

[FLASH1296]

"I don't beliive the size of the computer's bankroll has anything to do with the results.

Just quickly reviewing some of the indices provided in CVData's version of Complete Zen, there are only 5 indices is the DAS split chart, zero indices in the 98 Zen version, and no indices for surrender plays.

If this is how Zen was originally developed than the reason why my RA sims are outperforming is crystal clear. There are over 20 DAS indices and many LS indices."

My wording was poor. What I meant was that Risk Aversion is actually counter-productive when there is a near-zero R.O.R. due to a huge BR.

Ahhhh. YES, The original indices (as published) for ZEN was limited indeed. That explains it.

 

[jack.jackson]

Besides Flashes good point, here are my sims Bj. I double checked everything and used optimal spreads, with your exact rules, but im still not sure how were getting different results?

 

[bjcount]

Besides Flashes good point, here are my sims Bj. I double checked everything and used optimal spreads, with your exact rules, but im still not sure how were getting different results?

JJ.
Thanks for taking the time to rerun them.

That is very strange... we must have something set different. Your win rate with RA indices is substantially higher, but the SCORE is lower.

I don;t think I have ever seen that happen in my sims.

Are all the bonuses unchecked, and the BJ payoff is correct?
BJC

 

[jack.jackson]

My mistake

JJ.
Thanks for taking the time to rerun them.

That is very strange... we must have something set different. Your win rate with RA indices is substantially higher, but the SCORE is lower.

I don;t think I have ever seen that happen in my sims.

Are all the bonuses unchecked, and the BJ payoff is correct?
BJC

Well I got to looking between the differences, for the RA sims, in the action per hour, and for some reason mine was substanially higher than yours. So, that told me I was over-betting somewhere right, right.

When I manually input the RA indices I accidentally mistook the "running count per deck" for the "insurance deck tables" when putting in the tags. The deeper the pen, the more it skewed.

Ill have the new sims up soon.
________________________________________

Once all other possibilities have been eliminated; which remains is the truth-Sherlock Holmes

 

[jack.jackson]

Heres we go Bj. Now if only, we could get full maximum EV indices for Zen, we could make an accurate comparison between the two.

 

[FLASH1296]

I believe that this will fit the bill:

(Dead link: http://www.mediafire.com/?m0wxjodqt35)

 

[bjcount]

Heres we go Bj. Now if only, we could get full maximum EV indices for Zen, we could make an accurate comparison between the two.

I'm glad to see my results where similar to yours.

I would say that the complete set's lack of sufficient LS and DAS indices hurt the overall performance of Complete Zen as published.

Just run a complete set of zen indices using cvdata and than compare the RA to the full set.

BJC