I think your simulator is very reliable. As mentioned in a previous post, in Advanced Omega II, the ace card is assigned a side count value of +2; here from your simulator we find that in Hi-Opt 1, it should be assigned +2 too. These results are consistent to some degree, right? The value probably dependes on the bet spread. For a larger spread, the value should be lower. Thank you!
Thank you, and thank you for using it and letting me know issues, results, etc.
I am not sure what the answer is to whether +2 should be optimal with hi-opt 1. Would have guessed it would have been over counting Ace, but I guess it depends where it is counted and would think the bet spread would make things different as well.
Thanks,
Phil
No, in Hi-Opt I, the value of the Ace should be taken as '-1', meaning that the adjustment should be '+1' and not '+2'.
Sincerely,
Cac
In my simulator use 1 or 2 to add 1 or 2 to count for excess ace(s), subtract 1 or 2 from count for ace(s) deficit.
-1 or -2 will subtract 1 or 2 for excess ace(s) and add 1 or 2 for ace(s) deficit, so this would probably the opposite of what is likely intended.
Thanks,
Phil
What I am saying is that the optimal adjustment for the side count of aces in Hi-Opt I should be "1" and not "2".
Sincerely,
Cac
I increased the bet levels with hi-opt 1 and ace side count of 1 so that the average bet was almost exactly the same as the average bet in the runs with hi-opt 1 and ace side count of 2. In this case the % and $s came out almost exactly the same (within .001%).
However with the side count of 1 the risk levels were a little bit lower (about 1.5% lower in terms of $ variations). So that should mean that you could bet a little more with side count of 1 or would need to bet a little less with side count of 2 to equalize the risk levels. So side count of 1 should be slightly better in terms of risk reward.
I would guess that in practice hi-opt 1 with a side count of 1 for Ace would be preferable to side count of 2.
Thanks,
Phil
There is a very important reason why we choose one value over another, and that reason is the Betting Correlation (BC) of the system. For example, if we say that the adjustment is "1", it means that in Hi-Opt I, the ace will take the value of "-1". Therefore, our counting system for betting purposes will be as follows: -1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1. If we say that the adjustment is "2", it means that the ace will take the value of "-2" resulting in the following counting system for betting: -2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1. What is the Betting Correlation of each of these systems? In the first case, the BC is 0.9473, and in the second case, the BC is 0.9276. Therefore, we choose the one with the higher BC.
Sincerely,
Cac