MJ: Question for Norm: CKO

[MJ]

Did you ever run any simulations comparing KO and CKO and then chart performance of each system showing SCORE vs Pen on those graphs generated by CVCX? That would be a worthwhile undertaking IMHO. Could such a graph be displayed on CVCX?

One other unrelated question. I was skimming through your ebook and came upon the camouflage section. In one of the sections/charts you state that the greater the # of players at the table, the more costly the camo play to SCORE. This is news to me. Why should more players lead to camo being more costly?

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Did you ever run any simulations comparing KO and CKO
> and then chart performance of each system showing
> SCORE vs Pen on those graphs generated by CVCX? That
> would be a worthwhile undertaking IMHO. Could such a
> graph be displayed on CVCX?

This is in the second edition of Modern Blackjack. Well, not exactly. I didn't use the indexes in the book.

> One other unrelated question. I was skimming through
> your ebook and came upon the camouflage section. In
> one of the sections/charts you state that the greater
> the # of players at the table, the more costly the
> camo play to SCORE. This is news to me. Why should
> more players lead to camo being more costly?

Because the volatility of counts from round to round is higher with a larger number of players. I'm pretty sure I explained this in the book.

Modern Blackjack

[MJ]

> Because the volatility of counts from round to round
> is higher with a larger number of players. I'm pretty
> sure I explained this in the book.

Alright I looked it over and it all makes sense now, but here is one aspect that eludes me. See link at bottom.

You state:

In this chart, we see the same cover methods as in earlier charts for six decks with NO BET RESET AFTER A SHUFFLE for one, four, and six players. As we can see, a full table is very expensive for cover betting.

1 ? No Increase after a Loss
2 ? No Decrease after a Win
3 ? Same Bet after a Push
4 ? No Large Increases or Decreases

Why is it that for the 'No Cover' bars, 1 player has a slightly higher SCORE than that for 6 players? Given the stipulation of no bet reset after a shuffle, I believe criteria 2-4 above enter into the picture. Why wouldn't this stipulation affect the SCORE of all players equally, regardless how many?

Irrespective of how many players are at the table, if you are throwing out a big bet at the end of a shoe and you push or win, you will have to bet that same amount at the start of the shoe given your stipulation. This will adversely affect the betting correlation of the counter whether he is playing heads up or with 5 other players, because he is over-betting off the top. The second round he can bet with the count as 'no cover' is required.

The only reason I can think of to justify a lower SCORE for the 6 player scenario is if on average, the count will be higher during the final round of the shoe than that for 1 player. This would result in him overbetting off the top more so than 1 player, thereby diminishing his SCORE.

Thanks for any answers.
MJ

Link

[MJ]

> Did you ever run any simulations comparing KO and CKO
> and then chart performance of each system showing
> SCORE vs Pen on those graphs generated by CVCX? That
> would be a worthwhile undertaking IMHO. Could such a
> graph be displayed on CVCX?

You wrote: This is in the second edition of Modern Blackjack. Well, not exactly. I didn't use the indexes in the book.

Where in the second edition is the comparison? I checked but couldn't find CKO in the index.

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

That tiny difference is due to the cut card effect and the actual penetration. It could have been higher or lower. Since the dealer does not shuffle immediately upon hitting the cut card, actual penetration is not where the cut card is placed, but where the shuffle occurs on average.

[Norm Wattenberger]

See the comments on Daniel's book in REKO-D2.

[MJ]

> That tiny difference is due to the cut card effect and
> the actual penetration. It could have been higher or
> lower. Since the dealer does not shuffle immediately
> upon hitting the cut card, actual penetration is not
> where the cut card is placed, but where the shuffle
> occurs on average.

I thought the cut card effect is virtually nonexistent in shoe games and only applicable in single deck. Besides, why should the CCE effect be less taxing on the single player than for multiple players? Why wouldn't this hurt single and multiple players equally?

In the chart, you never specify where the counter is sitting in the 4 and 6 player bars. Is he at first or third base? Of course you realize sitting at third base would afford him an advantage over the single player, at least in theory. This is due to increased PE, probably more noticeable than the CCE anyway.

Regarding actual pen, I agree that on average it would be deeper for the 6 player than for 1 player. If anything, this would favor the 6 player for reasons mentioned above. Moreover, let's not discount the floating advantage. So, shouldn't deeper pen mean a slightly larger advantage for the 6 player than for the single player as well?

Thanks for further clarification.
MJ

[MJ]

> See the comments on Daniel's book in REKO-D2.

Hmmm...Chap 11 seems to deal with parables. Am I looking at the old book? See link below.

Link

[Norm Wattenberger]

Third base.

The effect I'm talking about isn't related to seat. It is related to the actual penetration that you will get, as opposed to the penetration of the cut card. Also, the percentage of times that you will get one more round. This is not a linear effect based on number of players. It moves up and down. That is, when you add a player, the real penetration may go up or down. It will increase more often than decrease, but can decrease. I know of nowhere in the literature where this is discussed, probably because it is a minor and unpredictable effect.

[Norm Wattenberger]

[MJ]

> Third base.

Okay, so why wouldn't the seat effect work to the advantage of the 6 player scenario as opposed to heads up? Perhaps it does but not enough to give 6-player a larger SCORE?

> The effect I'm talking about isn't related to seat.
> It
> is related to the actual penetration that you will
> get, as opposed to the penetration of the cut card.

So are you saying that the heads up player received better actual penetration than that for 6 player? That seems implausible. On average, the shuffle should occur further into the shoe for the 6-player than for the heads up player.

> Also, the percentage of times that you will get one
> more round.

When you mention % of times you will get one more round, do you mean in comparison to the average number of rounds played per shoe taking into account # players? Surely CVData can tell you how many rounds are played per shoe on average, but can it give a breakdown of % rounds played above and below this average?

In any case, wouldn't an extra round be a bad thing due to CCE? For what other reason would an extra round be played?

Lastly, since you mention deeper actual penetration, does floating advantage have any bearing on this discussion?

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

This is not easy to explain. Real penetration can depend on where on average in a round you hit the cut card. Is it one card into the round, or 90% through the round. This effects not only real penetration, but the degree of the CCE that you will experience. Adding one more player changes where in a round, on average, you hit the cut card. The effect is minor, non-linear, and unpredictable in real play since players play differently. It really isn't worth a great deal of thought.

[MJ]

> It really isn't worth a great deal of
> thought.

Alright, I don't want to beat this to death but there are a couple of things I am curious to know.

I thought it has always been known that for a play-all game, the # of players at the table has no bearing on SCORE. If you look at any of your canned sims for CVCX, the SCORES for 1 player and 4 player are virtually identical. Why don't the CCE and actual penetration you mention affect the results to make a noticeable difference?

For no reset after shuffle, does that mean if the counter wins or pushes on the final round of the shoe, he will bet the same amount for the first and only first round after the shuffle?

One other question- can CVData be used to determine the average 'actual penetration' for a given number of players?

Thanks,
MJ