Qfit Question: Bet Range Settings

[MountainMan]

Hello Norm:

I have a question regarding setting the amount bet for each count in the define betting screen of CVData. The system seems to limit the range of betting to 30. This works fine for count systems with typical tag values, but not for higher tag values. Is there a way to override this? I want to use a count system with higher tag values (5 & 10 for example). These tag values require larger bet\count multiples. Thanks for your help, MM

 

[Deathclutch]

Hello Norm:

I have a question regarding setting the amount bet for each count in the define betting screen of CVData. The system seems to limit the range of betting to 30. This works fine for count systems with typical tag values, but not for higher tag values. Is there a way to override this? I want to use a count system with higher tag values (5 & 10 for example). These tag values require larger bet\count multiples. Thanks for your help, MM

I asked the question a while back and as far as I know 30 is as high as it goes. If you're using an unbalanced you can just set the IRC a lot lower to compensate. If it's balanced then try dividing all your tags in half. Just make sure to double everything when it's done.

 

[MountainMan]

I don't want to cut the values in half because I want the resulting index numbers to be more accurate, not less. If I can use a tag value of 10 instead of 1 then the index number would provide me with a greater accuracy. My tag values are 5 & 10, so I'll round my index numbers to the nearest 5. Basically, I'm using the Wong Halves count multiplied by ten. I can compute my optimal bet by using the Halves count, but I can't run a sim since I'm limited by the above mentioned bet range of 30. I'm sure Norm will be able to make it all work out. Thanks, MM

 

[MountainMan]

Qfit

Norm: Anyone home?

 

[Nynefingers]

Worst case scenario, can't you just use your normal tags, generate indices with a full report, and interpolate to get more precise index numbers?

 

[MountainMan]

Thanks for responding, but that won't help. The problem is in running the sim. The system won't let me use the higher bets in a simulation. I believe that the higher numbers will give me more efficiency, but I want to prove it with a sim.

Think about this for a moment; All index systems that round or truncate to a whole number must result in a pretty significant error for the lower true count numbers, which occur most frequently.

For example, if the index number for standing on 12 vs. 2 is 3 in the table, it may really be 3.99 before truncating. By truncating to a value of 3 we're lopping off 25% in value. In another example, If the real index number was 1.99 then truncated to 1, were lopping off 50%!

So then, I believe a system with count tags that capitalize on this fact would be more efficient.

Consider these tag values: A-X -20,-20,-20,-20,-20,-20,-20,0,0,-25.

Most combinations offset to zero or minus 5. This gives me the accuracy that I'm anticipating, is easy to count, has a PE of 58, BE or 97 and Insurance of 82.5, and it's a balanced count.

If this is all wrong thinking, I'm sure I'll hear about it. Please feel free to beat me up!

Thanks for keeping an open mind. Norm: I need to run the sim using higher values. Thanks. MM

 

[QFIT]

That's not supported. What you are looking for is the same as using decimal indexes. This has been shown to have almost no gain.

 

[MountainMan]

Thanks. I'll try another way. MM