I was reading in BJ for Blood, Bryce Carlson felt that a 1-2 spread was enough to beat the 1D game. and 1-4 was enough to beat the 2D game. This seems a little off, especially for red/green chip level. Maybe in the black chip level this is enough. Would someone like to elaborate? First, is 1-2 enough to make a positive ROI? Second, is 1-2 enough to give you a SUFFICIENT ROI or is the amount less than minimum wage? Does anybody here use the Omega count and if so, what's been your experience with it? Thanks.
BJ for Blood
- Thread starter Cyrano
- Start date
Adam N. Subtractum
Well-Known Member
I have...
...some data on flat-betting and 1-2 AOII somewhere, I'll have to see if I can find it. I do have some figures for the system I am currently upgrading to, which is slightly more powerful than AOII. With 4 rounds to 2, H17, DOA, no T splits, my system produces a .40% ROI with a 1-2 spread and a 10% RoR. This is very impressive, and believe it or not, has a higher ROI than a typical system would at a 4.5/6 game, spreading 1-10 and wonging out.
Of course you need to use about 200 indices to see these results, and this is without any cover (which won't be a real factor at the red level anyway), but you get the idea. You really shouldn't even think about executing this scheme if you are employing a system with anything less than an excellent PE.
ANS
...some data on flat-betting and 1-2 AOII somewhere, I'll have to see if I can find it. I do have some figures for the system I am currently upgrading to, which is slightly more powerful than AOII. With 4 rounds to 2, H17, DOA, no T splits, my system produces a .40% ROI with a 1-2 spread and a 10% RoR. This is very impressive, and believe it or not, has a higher ROI than a typical system would at a 4.5/6 game, spreading 1-10 and wonging out.
Of course you need to use about 200 indices to see these results, and this is without any cover (which won't be a real factor at the red level anyway), but you get the idea. You really shouldn't even think about executing this scheme if you are employing a system with anything less than an excellent PE.
ANS
Re: I have...
ANS,
So what you're suggesting is, I should stick to a system with high PE (as opposed to high BC) and learn more index numbers? I'm actually a little surprised at the results you mentioned on the 6D game, since I was expecting a high PE would perform a little worse than high BC. what's considered excellent PE? 90+? Also, are you using a level 2 count?
ANS,
So what you're suggesting is, I should stick to a system with high PE (as opposed to high BC) and learn more index numbers? I'm actually a little surprised at the results you mentioned on the 6D game, since I was expecting a high PE would perform a little worse than high BC. what's considered excellent PE? 90+? Also, are you using a level 2 count?
Adam N. Subtractum
Well-Known Member
slight misunderstanding...
"So what you're suggesting is, I should stick to a system with high PE (as opposed to high BC) and learn more index numbers?"
C, I wasn't recommending this approach in general, I was merely speaking of the particular case of single deck with a moderate spread.
"I'm actually a little surprised at the results you mentioned on the 6D game, since I was expecting a high PE would perform a little worse than high BC."
Re-read what I said, I think you misunderstood. The particular "typical system" I was referring to has the exact same BC as my system, but an inferior PE.
"...what's considered excellent PE? 90+?"
To say the least, yes .90+ is an excellent PE. More realistically, I consider anything over .58 good, and over .65 excellent. Of course it matters how the PE figure was calc'd, but that's another matter altogether, just use the figures you see as rough guidelines.
"Also, are you using a level 2 count?"
No, I don't believe the jump to level II is worth it (JMO). I use a level I system w/ Ace sidecount.
ANS
"So what you're suggesting is, I should stick to a system with high PE (as opposed to high BC) and learn more index numbers?"
C, I wasn't recommending this approach in general, I was merely speaking of the particular case of single deck with a moderate spread.
"I'm actually a little surprised at the results you mentioned on the 6D game, since I was expecting a high PE would perform a little worse than high BC."
Re-read what I said, I think you misunderstood. The particular "typical system" I was referring to has the exact same BC as my system, but an inferior PE.
"...what's considered excellent PE? 90+?"
To say the least, yes .90+ is an excellent PE. More realistically, I consider anything over .58 good, and over .65 excellent. Of course it matters how the PE figure was calc'd, but that's another matter altogether, just use the figures you see as rough guidelines.
"Also, are you using a level 2 count?"
No, I don't believe the jump to level II is worth it (JMO). I use a level I system w/ Ace sidecount.
ANS
I see...
Well, I play much more pitch games than shoe games, so it might be well worth my time to learn more index numbers and change to a better PE count. It seems, though, 99% of the time, the TC doesn't go above or below 10 and all of my index #'s fall in that category (about 50 total deviations). There's actually been only one instance where the count was +12 (in the middle of a deal) and it fell back down to a +8 before I could capitalize on it. What's been your experience? Should I go up to +/- 15?
Well, I play much more pitch games than shoe games, so it might be well worth my time to learn more index numbers and change to a better PE count. It seems, though, 99% of the time, the TC doesn't go above or below 10 and all of my index #'s fall in that category (about 50 total deviations). There's actually been only one instance where the count was +12 (in the middle of a deal) and it fell back down to a +8 before I could capitalize on it. What's been your experience? Should I go up to +/- 15?