Systems Archive 1

Re: Omega II-definition of optimal?

Posted by T-Hopper on Thursday, 13 November 1997, at 7:35 p.m., in response to Omega II-definition of optimal?, posted by Green Baize Vampire on Thursday, 13 November 1997, at 1:53 p.m.

>>
I have a little problem with the definition of
Omega II as the optimal system for playing
efficency (see T-hopper's post down page on
combined counts.In "Theory of Gambling & Statistical
logic" Richard Epstein states that while Omega
II is the optimal system for playing efficiency
(he calls it Griffin 2) Hi-Opt II (Epstein calls
it "Stepine") is superior because of its greater
insurance correlation.

Epstein notes a 1-4 spread gives a player
expectation of 0.025 for Hi-Opt II and 0.024 for
Omega.
If it makes more money then surely it's the
better system, though obviously it will depend
on the game conditions. But I don't really
know how insurance correlation measures up
against PE and BC.

Incidentally, messing about with Griffin's
formula's revealed you can get a PE of 67 and
an insurance correlation of .96 (almost perfect)
with this unbalanced count:

A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 -2

### Single Deck Playing Efficiency

System12-177-11A2-A922-AAInsuranceOverall
Unbalanced GBV.517.700.533.624.950.602
Omega II.594.793.619.784.801.673
Hi-Opt II.582.782.599.747.878.665

### Six Deck Playing Efficiency

System12-177-11A2-A922-AAInsuranceOverall
Unbalanced GBV.549.690.491.505.930.606
Omega II.601.767.592.698.727.657
Hi-Opt II.602.759.569.656.832.660

Hi-Opt II does better against Omega II with more decks in
play due to the increased relative value of insurance.

Your unbalanced count is seriously hindered by the inclusion
of the 9 as a small card. If you left out the 9 your PE would
be about 50 points higher. You must have made a mistake
somewhere to come up with .67 rather than .62 or so for the
overall PE.

Also see my new post regarding the Sourcebook at the top of
the page.

Responses