creeping panther said:
I have experimented doing exactly as you questioned, using many indices, in a very good game and I have beaten the house, Flat betting.
I seriously question this.
Basic strategy deviations, when flat betting, barely increase your edge. That's because the switches that you make at the most common counts (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2) aren't very valuable, and the switches you make at the most valuable counts (-3 or below, +3 or above) aren't very common.
Here are the values for making perfect basic strategy changes from TC -5 to TC +5 - that is, the difference in EV between perfect strategy and basic strategy. But when you multiply each of the changes by the likelihood of the TC, the value decreases rapidly.
Code:
TC Change Value
-5 0.304% 0.003%
-4 0.184% 0.004%
-3 0.103% 0.004%
-2 0.045% 0.004%
-1 0.013% 0.002%
0 0 0
1 0.002% 0
2 0.018% 0.002%
3 0.054% 0.002%
4 0.165% 0.003%
5 0.339% 0.003%
Overall, by making perfect strategy adjustments, you will gain about 0.03% on the house. More accurately, though, it's not that you will GAIN 0.03%, but that you WON'T LOSE 0.03%. That is, by always playing basic strategy, you actually play with an additional -0.03% EV against the house.
For example, if your game has a book-calculated EV of -0.57%, and you play basic strategy, your actual EV is -0.60% - because the book calculated the EV assuming the count is always 0. If you make strategy changes, then that's the only way you get the -0.57% that's actually calculated.
I really doubt anyone can beat the house with just strategy changes.
If you're backcounting and making strategy changes, that's different. The majority of your edge is coming from backcounting; only a minor portion is coming from strategy changes.
