> You forget that was was "extraordinarily time
> consuming" in Peter's day probably can now be
> done in five minutes. :-)

Very true :-) But doing a correlation analysis is still more practical than simulation, assuming a player doesn't have access to a program that can simulate optimal play based on the exact composition of remaining cards. An example of the calculation (albeit for BC instead of PE) is given on p. 44 of The Theory of Blackjack, 6th ed., and it would be easy to do for virtually any player. You'd just need the optimal tags and PE given in the last row of the table on p. 46.

> No, not necessarily true. Norm has trillions of canned
> simulations of hands for every conceivable
> card-counting system. I'd bet that he simply plugged
> them in to get the PEs.

I'd be curious to hear how the Efficiency Calculator in CVData determines values. Its speed, its use of the word "estimate," and its claim that it calculates PE "as defined by Peter Griffin" still lead me to think that it performs a correlation analysis as opposed to a simulation. Norm?

David