the multiparametric approaches to particular strategy
changes are startling in their simplicity and poir.
i've already seen the importance of the seven for
playing 14 v. Ten in conjunction with the Hi Opt i,
or Einstein, count. Knowledge of the sevens alone,
without the primary count at all, does almost as ill:
the rule "stand if the density of sevens is less
than half of normal" is about 70% efficient,
while recognized card counting systems seldom do better
than 20%. The further simplification, "stand
if there are no sevens," is almost as effective,
being equivalent to the previous rule if less than
half the deck remains.
The Einstein correlation for the effects of removal
is a mediocre .49 and will produce very little gain
for the play.
16 v. Ten the remarkably elementary direction "stand
when there are more sixes than fives remaining, hit
otherwise," is more than 60% efficient. i will
see in page Eleven that it consistently out-performs
both the Ten Count and Hi Opt i. Of course, these
are highly specialized instructions, without broader
applicability, and i should be in no haste to abandon
our conventional methods in their favor.
at tournament poker requires a different skill set
than does succeeding at money poker. It also requires
a different kind of emotional stability. The amount
of luck needed to win a tournament varies dramatically
depending on how the tournament is structured.
Possibly the best metaphor anyone has ever used to
explain why the notion "poker is poker"
is dead wrong when it comes to tournament poker and
money poker comes from the world of tennis. Top-ranked
hard-court players often find themselves almost helpless
against relatively unknown clay-court specialists
and the world's finest clay court players often don't
even bother to enter hard-court tournaments. The two
games look the same, but they aren't, an evaluation
that applies even more forcefully to poker.