Systems Archive 3

[ Read Responses | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]

My opinion would be no surprise..

Posted by Brh on 21 April 1999, at 8:19 a.m., in response to For Brh - comments wanted, posted by Wiz Kid on 21 April 1999, at 7:46 a.m.

Wiz Kid/T-Hopper,

My response to this debate would be predictable Im sure..

My secondary count sims show that HiOpt2, AOII, BrhII amongst others, give lower N0 values when converted to Brh-I rather than Halves or True-SS in 6 and 8 decks. However, I have not done sims with weighted secondary count combinations for different plays, so my PE values are basically that of the primary count.

Nevertheless, for no other reason than betting-insurance induced correlation, I would say that T-Hop-10 would be improved by dropping the '9' from the betting count, at least for shoe games. I would not mess around by calling the '9' -0.5, just call it zero and be done with it.

Cheers,
Brett.

Responses

• Re: My opinion would be no surprise.. - T-Hopper - 21 April 1999, at 9:46 a.m.
  • Re: My opinion would be no surprise.. - Wiz kid - 21 April 1999, at 2:12 p.m.
    • Re: My opinion would be no surprise.. - T-Hopper - 21 April 1999, at 2:39 p.m.
    • Re: My opinion would be no surprise.. - Clarke Cant - 23 April 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
      • Re: My opinion would be no surprise.. - T-Hopper - 29 April 1999, at 9:23 p.m.
  • Re: My opinion would be no surprise.. - Brh - 21 April 1999, at 8:36 p.m.
    • Re: My opinion would be no surprise.. - T-Hopper - 21 April 1999, at 8:54 p.m.
• Re: My opinion would be no surprise.. - Wiz kid - 21 April 1999, at 2:16 p.m.
  • I guess I overestimated you - T-Hopper - 21 April 1999, at 4:50 p.m.

The Systems Archive 3 is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.060398.