xengrifter
Banned
I'm still waiting...BoSox said:
... If I ever get ahead, absolutely I will quit!
Counter BS - Forget the I-18?
- Thread starter xengrifter
- Start date
... If I ever get ahead, absolutely I will quit!
xengrifter
Banned
DSchles said:
That is exactly why...KewlJ said:
... There were only ever two publications of the concept, in the popular realm, dating back to approximately Y2K - Hal Marcus and THopper - and the entire concept quickly fell into obscurity.
I never gave it much consideration, until in recent years I saw sims ranging from 87-93% of I-18's value...
... Which in my book translates out to SAME GAIN when allowing for errors and poor deck estimation.
xengrifter
Banned
DSchles said:
xengrifter said:
There; that settles it - CBS equals 90% of i18 ....DSchles said:
.... with a single index! (SCORE be damned)
Sigh. Want to dust off any other antiquated notions from the last century? I already furnished you with this. SCORE squares e.v. in the calculation ("SCORE be damned" is an ignorant remark). 0.72^2 = 0.5184. 0.81^2 = 0.6561. The ratio is 79%. In other words, the CBS SCORE is 79% of the I-18, IF the Marcus values are correct to begin with.xengrifter said:
Up to readers to decide if not learning 18 indices is worth a reduction in hourly winnings of 21%. I think few would be stupid enough to say yes. YMMV.
Don
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
I am not crazy about the argument and wording that both you guys (Zengrifter and Don) are making. 
Zengrifter initially tried to say that CBS is just as good as using the Ill 18, which is preposterous. And he unsuccessfully tried to back off that statement.
Meanwhile Don is correct in what he is saying. There is a cost. And he is able to use simulations to tell just what that cost is.
But that is only part of the debate. Counter Basic Strategy is a form of cover. And all cover has a cost. Don is rightfully pointing out that cost, but the cost is only part of the story. In theory, CBS should increase longevity and if that is the case then you have to add all that extra play that a player may not have been able to get, had he been playing the Ill 18.
This is one of those situations were simulations don't provide the answer. Real life play does.
CBS is one of several techniques or tools that I use to try to improve longevity, along with things like limiting the information I show in one sitting (short sessions and only showing spread once), as well as playing within certain levels that I feel are better tolerated. Now I can't prove that any of these things have made a difference. I believe they have and if that is the case, I have gotten alot of extra play and winnings vs someone playing Ill 18. And THAT is not going to show up in the simulations.
I guess my big issue with Don's argument is where he said "few would be STUPID enough to say the reduction is worth it". I guess I am one of those few, but I don't feel it a reduction, as I just explained. I think you both are using some poor choice of words in your arguments.
Zengrifter initially tried to say that CBS is just as good as using the Ill 18, which is preposterous. And he unsuccessfully tried to back off that statement.
Meanwhile Don is correct in what he is saying. There is a cost. And he is able to use simulations to tell just what that cost is.
But that is only part of the debate. Counter Basic Strategy is a form of cover. And all cover has a cost. Don is rightfully pointing out that cost, but the cost is only part of the story. In theory, CBS should increase longevity and if that is the case then you have to add all that extra play that a player may not have been able to get, had he been playing the Ill 18.
This is one of those situations were simulations don't provide the answer. Real life play does.
CBS is one of several techniques or tools that I use to try to improve longevity, along with things like limiting the information I show in one sitting (short sessions and only showing spread once), as well as playing within certain levels that I feel are better tolerated. Now I can't prove that any of these things have made a difference. I believe they have and if that is the case, I have gotten alot of extra play and winnings vs someone playing Ill 18. And THAT is not going to show up in the simulations.
I guess my big issue with Don's argument is where he said "few would be STUPID enough to say the reduction is worth it". I guess I am one of those few, but I don't feel it a reduction, as I just explained. I think you both are using some poor choice of words in your arguments.
xengrifter
Banned
Honestly, it was sarcasm - I should never have brought SCORE into this with the inventor of SCORE LOL!...DSchles said:
... But it now begs the question: if i18 e.v. is 81%, and we reduce that to SCORE, then it shows the fallacy of conventional wisdom proclaiming i18 of yielding "80% available e.v." when it really only SCOREs 65%! (less even in most games) - After all, I'm the guy who famously advocates learning 40+ departures - is only learning 18 numbers worth a 30+% reduction?
-> And when we add KJ's enhanced time and motion gloss to the fray we see that we can use a single index and simply play 66 minutes instead of 60 minutes for the same EV - many newbies would opt to play an extra 6 minutes instead of struggling with 18 departures and a true count adjustment which they will largely fudge-up.
Next antiquated-notion dustoff coming right up!
.
Last edited:
xengrifter
Banned
Yes - Grosjean called you a dinosaur ...KewlJ said:
... turns out, you are a STUPID dinosaur!
Honestly, I just don't want to have this discussion, because you simply don't know what you're talking about. Everything has been discussed ad nauseam, and it is a mathematical fact that the I18 SCOREs anywhere from 85%-90% of all the gain available from knowing, say, 150 indices.xengrifter said:
Again, feel free to write any nonsense you want here. You don't understand any of the concepts at all, and I feel it's somewhat foolish and disingenuous of you to spout nonsense, but that's your choice. The bigger concern is that anyone will actually listen to you.
Don
xengrifter
Banned
Holy toledo! ...DSchles said:
... I'm changing my handle to zenTthree!
Apparently, I mis-extrapolated from the i18 SCORE below (.6561) - Didn't I already say, let's leave SCORE out of this? LOL
So you are saying that the novice with one index and CBS would need to play 9 extra minutes (not 6) to garner the same value as i18?DSchles said:
Please do not respond, I know that you do not want to have this discussion; the question was rhetorical!
Last edited:
It may have been rhetorical, but once again, the math is wrong. If CBS garners 79% of I18 (and I still don't know if Hal was right in his calculations -- it was a long time ago), then 1/0.79 = 1.266 extra time. And 26.6% of an hour (60 minutes) is 16 minutes not 9. Again, to me, this is significant. YMMV.xengrifter said:
Your turn, but frankly, I really think you ought to quit while you're behind!
Don
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. A player deciding to play CBS is not about simplification, so the player being a novice doesn't enter into it. I mean Illustrious 18 is already simplification. A novice player should be able to learn 18 strategy play changes. He/she doesn't need it any simpler than that.xengrifter said:
When a player decides to play CBS, it is about longevity. It is cover. That is a decision an experienced player makes, not a novice, based on his situation, how much he plays and longevity goals and concerns.
If you are advising players to play CBS for simplicity, that is wrong in my opinion. You don't need simpler than Illustrious 18. I am suggesting players may want to consider CBS as cover, for longevity reasons. There is a cost, as Don rightfully points out, but I believe an even bigger benefit.
xengrifter
Banned
Oh yeah? Well I'm old school pal, we don't split hairs using high-falutin concepts like SCORE ...DSchles said:Your turn, but frankly, I really think you ought to quit while you're behind!
... We use EV to explain ...... everything!
Last edited:
xengrifter
Banned
So you grant no interim/middle ground for the novice...KewlJ said:
... She either counts and uses BS or procedes directly to TC-adjusted i18 ?
KewlJ
Well-Known Member
Sure, if a novice can't or doesn't want to learn 18, he can learn 3 or 5 or 10 or whatever he chooses. Don has made it easy by listing them by value. But even as a novice if you can't learn 18, I have to question how serious you are about winning.xengrifter said:
But you seem to want to substitute CBS as an alternative, easier strategy and that is not what CBS is. CBS is cover. Would you advise a novice to play opposition wagering or any other cover?
xengrifter
Banned
Only one:KewlJ said:
"Don't lower your bet immediately upon shuffle."
PS - I get your emphasis on CBS for cover...
... It is an interesting anomaly that a strategy that was initially intended for beginners is now advised for advanced practitioners.
PPS - I can recall a time still memorialized within these BJINFO pages when you would not concede to giving up a dime of EV for cover!
Last edited:
xengrifter
Banned
Alright already!!KewlJ said: