4d Upcoming seminar and video

[Quizzical1]

Playing shoes I'm finding this:

I think we can drop computing the lowest disparity and simply use the lowest count for net betting.

That's the way the testers tested.

That's the way Jerry posted his successful shoe.

That's the way I did the first play by play.

While technically the lowest disparity is mathematically correct it can be too difficult to track in a close shoe where all 4 counts are competing for low.

And in such a shoe, it doesn't much matter.

We don't need disparity when we go SS - we just need the highest count.

The lowest count is right there on the same line we are playing and easy to see.

In case of tied low counts I think we can simply go with the leftmost count so we are all playing the same way.

Most of the time the lowest count is also the lowest disparity anyway.

I'm thinking the simplest way is probably the best way.

This system is complex enough w/o unnecessarily adding more complexity.

Disparity makes our scorecard too busy for whatever tiny advantage it might gain.

I'll post the next shoe played only using the lowest and highest counts.

s

Ellis,

When you say lowest count do you refer to the one closest to zero from either positive or negative direction?

Example: what if OR is at +2 and OT is at -1. Wouldn't the -1 be lowest count?