Weighted value of rules, wonging, and indices on $ return

[Karkas]

I am new to counting and still trying to get a good handle on the impact of different rules and indices on $ return.


Yes, I know nothing I present here is particularly novel, but I haven't personally seen anything laid out in terms of monetary gain based on rules after running sims. Only vague generalities or confusing numbers. Since I'm still learning & only intend to count cards as a hobby, I want to only focus my time and efforts on the aspects that really matter.


If this is stupid, please disregard, but this the way I'm better able to grasp the impact of different rules, wonging, and indices. If it looks like I made any errors, I'd be happy to have them pointed out so I'm not deluding myself or anyone else. I only did this little study for myself and after doing so, thought it might be helpful to a few other people, provided I didn't do this all wrong...


Test Methods:
Count = High-Low. Sim software = CVCX. I began with a baseline of 6D H17, nDAS, nRSA, nSr, no indices or insurance taken as a control (basic strategy). Split to 4 hands. No multiple draws to split aces. Dealer peeks for ace only. I used a 1-12 bet (CVCX default) spread with $100 minimum and simmed 40hrs/week for one year of playing. This is obviously not exactly realistic, but a smaller minimum should yield comparable results. All sims were 2 Billion rounds and ran 5-10 times each with their average used for calculations.


Results:
*Rules*
Surrender rule = Yielded +55% extra cumulative return
DAS rule = Yielded +44% extra cumulative return
RSA rule = Yielded +21% extra cumulative return
Synergy of all three rules in play concomitantly= Yielded +8% extra cumulative return


So before using a single index these 3 rules increase your return by ~+128%.


*Indices & Wonging out* These were run on DAS, RSA, Sr to compare their additional value to rule returns above.


Playing all counts = Illustrious 18 + Fab 4 added +16% to above. Full indexes added another +4% above I18 + Fab4 (+20% total).


Wonging out at -3 and below = Illustrious 18 + Fab 4 added +34%. Full indexes added another +3% above I18 + Fab4 (+37% total).


Wonging out at -2 and below = Illustrious 18 + Fab 4 added +42%. Full indexes added another +2% above I18 + Fab4 (+44% total).


Wonging out at -1 and below = Illustrious 18 + Fab 4 added +48%. Full indexes added another +3% above I18 + Fab4 (+51% total).


Conclusions:
I had no idea that the simple rule of RSA appears to have a similar if not greater impact on return than using full indices. I have always read that you are better off finding favorable rules than worrying about index idiosyncrasies... Now I see just how much. Don's I18 really does get you quite close to the returns of a full index. Even closer when you don't play negative counts. I'm pleased to see that you really don't take a huge hit if you aren't crazy aggressive to Wong out the moment the count goes negative.


I welcome any advice or criticism anyone may have for this & I'm willing to send anyone that wants it, the spreadsheet with precise figures.


Cheers

[BoSox]

Test Methods:
Count = High-Low. Sim software = CVCX. I began with a baseline of H17, nDAS, nRSA, nSr, no indices or insurance taken as a control (basic strategy). I used a 1-12 bet spread with $100 minimum and simmed 40hrs/week for one year of playing. This is obviously not exactly realistic, but a smaller minimum should yield comparable results. All sims were 2 Billion rounds and ran 5-10 times each with their average used for calculations.

You left off the number of decks used so the reader is left to guess. I have no idea.

Results:
*Rules*
Surrender rule = Yielded +55% extra cumulative return
DAS rule = Yielded +44% extra cumulative return
RSA rule = Yielded +21% extra cumulative return
Synergy of all three rules in play concomitantly= Yielded +8% extra cumulative return

I am not familiar with extra cumulative return percentages. Usually I see it expressed as EV gains or losses percentages.
Under the late surrender rule with the high low count it is worth about three times what a basic strategy player gains, but is effected by number of decks in play, the more decks in play the greater the gain.
The DAS rule you do not say how many times you are allowed to split, such as twice, three, four or more times.
The RSA rule not only does it not say how many times you can split, but also does not tell you if you only get one card after splitting or allowed multiple hits.
Obviously the reader is basically left in the dark with the lack of information you provided.

Conclusions:
I had no idea that the simple rule of RSA appears to have a similar if not greater impact on return than using full indices.

I cannot disagree more with that point of view. You would need to look at the frequency of occurrence comparing the two examples. Plus we do not know what happens after you split the aces.

[Karkas]

You left off the number of decks used so the reader is left to guess. I have no idea.

Thanks for pointing out my oversight. I edited the original post. I used 6D ONLY, since that's so common.

I am not familiar with extra cumulative return percentages. Usually I see it expressed as EV gains or losses percentages.
Under the late surrender rule with the high low count it is worth about three times what a basic strategy player gains, but is effected by number of decks in play, the more decks in play the greater the gain.
The DAS rule you do not say how many times you are allowed to split, such as twice, three, four or more times.
The RSA rule not only does it not say how many times you can split, but also does not tell you if you only get one card after splitting or allowed multiple hits.
Obviously the reader is basically left in the dark with the lack of information you provided.

Split was allowed to 4 hands. No multiple hits.

I cannot disagree more with that point of view. You would need to look at the frequency of occurrence comparing the two examples. Plus we do not know what happens after you split the aces.

I'll rerun some of the sims around the RSA rule, tweak parameters and see if I can spot any errors or flaws in methodology.

Thanks Bosox.