Systems Archive 1

Re: Power Ratings

Posted by T-Hopper on 25 May 1998, at 9:15 p.m., in response to Re: Ace Side Count, posted by Biff on 25 May 1998, at 5:57 p.m.

A lot of people don't like to see a bunch of numbers like EV, ADV/VAR, Win/100, SD/Hand, PE, BC, IC and so on. So I try to keep it simple without giving up any accuracy. One way I do this is by the use of the single variable ROI to evaluate different count systems and bet spreads. This tells you what % of your bankroll you will win per 100 hands with a 1% chance of going broke.

The power ratings are another attempt of mine to sum up a lot of data with a single number. They assume bet spreads of approximately 1-3 in single deck, 1-6 in double deck, and 1-10 in six decks, and give the approximate percent of the total gain over basic strategy the system will achieve compared to a computer keeping track of all ten denominations and using perfect strategy. To get a general feel for how strong the different counts are, just look at the "DD" column right in the middle and ignore everything else.

These numbers were made with three simple formulas based on betting efficiency, which is calculated from betting correlation, and playing efficiency. Variables such as more decks in play, larger bet spreads, fewer players at the table, not using all of the indices, worse penetration, table hopping, and not having to make cover bets are just some of the factors that cause a higher proportion of the overall gain to come from betting rather than playing. If I changed the assumptions("typical" games), then the formulas and therefore the power ratings would change slightly.

I believe that a presentation in this form can help someone decide which system to play, or whether to move up to a more complicated one. Having a single number which represents a rough average of all possible scenarios makes it much easier to understand where your expectation is coming from. I've also found these numbers very helpful in researching all of the possible ways to count cards, since if I had to run billions of hands of simulations for every idea I had I would never have gotten anywhere.

Sorry I don't know much about hockey or football or I would have used a metaphor. Maybe someone else can come up with one. On the other hand, I didn't spend much time in the classroom either, although I have spent a lot of time reading Peter Griffin's book The Theory of Blackjack.

Responses