Ferretnparrot
Well-Known Member
Alright, I came up with this suggestion a while ago, but I want to bring it up again, so it will have a home, in the correct place. This is my idea....
To a basic strategy player, the preservation fo cards prior to the shuffle is not important, because on average, each card has the same EV to the player weather it be before the shuffle, or off the top of a fresh shoe.
This is not true to a card counter, where at times, the remainging cards to be dealt represnt positive ev to a player who could potentially take advantage of it. For this reason i am proposing that based upon the count, every card left undealt has and ~average EV~ whatever it may be, in addition, this average EV would be dependant on the count.
The EV for each card would simply be the instantanious ev to the player, divided by the average number of cards consumed each round at the current count. For anybody who actually attempts to tackle this puzzle i am proposing, take note that the average number of cards consumed each roudn shoudl be different at different counts.
To my knowledge, the formulation of both basic strategy and index plays are based on the dollar return of all the permutation of a given hand. so if a play that consumed 4 cards on average was more profitable than a play that consumed only 1 or even 0, the basic strategy action, **EVEN IF BY A MINESCULE DIFFERENCE** or the index for that play woudl be set to point out when the most profitabel play is regardless of how many cards it consumes.
I feel that this is a lack of efficiency in how indexes are formulated because to the card counter, at counts where index take place, cards will have an average ev to the player when consumed. For every card consumed you reduce the ~average~ number of hands you are dealt prior to the shuffle. It shoudl be no argument that maximising the number of hands prior to the shuffle is worth doing so long as the means to do so are justifiable.
I beleive that indexes shoudl be tailored to accomadate for the value of the cards consumed. and the number of players sitting at the table, since the number of players sitting at the table determines the average number of cards consumed each round, and thus the average ev of each card.
It shoudle be fairly straigth forward to do, just find when the charts of ev for basic strategy actions fall short of the index play action by exactly the value of the differnce of the average number of cards consumed for each of the two actions rather than simply markign the index exactly where the charts cross.
I dont have these charts, so im just tossing my idea into the open. Im also mandating that since in the past, the number of tables at the table was thought to be irrelevant, the fact that it does matter, and have an effect on "potential ev" to be known as "ferrets law"
"Ferrets law" states that the number of players at the table has an effect on the *potential* player advantage, but must be taken note of and indexes modified accordingly to benefit from.
To a basic strategy player, the preservation fo cards prior to the shuffle is not important, because on average, each card has the same EV to the player weather it be before the shuffle, or off the top of a fresh shoe.
This is not true to a card counter, where at times, the remainging cards to be dealt represnt positive ev to a player who could potentially take advantage of it. For this reason i am proposing that based upon the count, every card left undealt has and ~average EV~ whatever it may be, in addition, this average EV would be dependant on the count.
The EV for each card would simply be the instantanious ev to the player, divided by the average number of cards consumed each round at the current count. For anybody who actually attempts to tackle this puzzle i am proposing, take note that the average number of cards consumed each roudn shoudl be different at different counts.
To my knowledge, the formulation of both basic strategy and index plays are based on the dollar return of all the permutation of a given hand. so if a play that consumed 4 cards on average was more profitable than a play that consumed only 1 or even 0, the basic strategy action, **EVEN IF BY A MINESCULE DIFFERENCE** or the index for that play woudl be set to point out when the most profitabel play is regardless of how many cards it consumes.
I feel that this is a lack of efficiency in how indexes are formulated because to the card counter, at counts where index take place, cards will have an average ev to the player when consumed. For every card consumed you reduce the ~average~ number of hands you are dealt prior to the shuffle. It shoudl be no argument that maximising the number of hands prior to the shuffle is worth doing so long as the means to do so are justifiable.
I beleive that indexes shoudl be tailored to accomadate for the value of the cards consumed. and the number of players sitting at the table, since the number of players sitting at the table determines the average number of cards consumed each round, and thus the average ev of each card.
It shoudle be fairly straigth forward to do, just find when the charts of ev for basic strategy actions fall short of the index play action by exactly the value of the differnce of the average number of cards consumed for each of the two actions rather than simply markign the index exactly where the charts cross.
I dont have these charts, so im just tossing my idea into the open. Im also mandating that since in the past, the number of tables at the table was thought to be irrelevant, the fact that it does matter, and have an effect on "potential ev" to be known as "ferrets law"
"Ferrets law" states that the number of players at the table has an effect on the *potential* player advantage, but must be taken note of and indexes modified accordingly to benefit from.
