pm: Small spread & BJRM

[pm]

Don, John, Norm, if you use BJRM to calculate a bet schedule for a 1-3 spread (Hi-Lo, 4.5, S17 DAS LS) and check the "Find best wong-in" box, bets are only placed at a true of +2 and above.

I'm assuming that the unit and bet ramp you would actually use would be fairly different than what BJRM shows since you'd be wonging in at +1 and exiting at -1. Is there any way to estimate the bet schedule for a 1-3 spread using BJRM/CVCX, or is CVData the only way to approximate it?

(I'm not sure if this is a nit-picky thing; I guess that's why I'm asking..)

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don, John, Norm, if you use BJRM to
> calculate a bet schedule for a 1-3 spread
> (Hi-Lo, 4.5, S17 DAS LS) and check the
> "Find best wong-in" box, bets are
> only placed at a true of +2 and above.

Right. See also Table 10.51, p. 240 of BJA3.

> I'm assuming that the unit and bet ramp you
> would actually use would be fairly different
> than what BJRM shows since you'd be wonging
> in at +1 and exiting at -1.

Don't understand your point. Why would you be Wonging in at +1 if it tells you to wait for +2?

> Is there any way
> to estimate the bet schedule for a 1-3
> spread using BJRM/CVCX, or is CVData the
> only way to approximate it?

Not clear as to what you're looking for.

Don

[pm]

> Don't understand your point. Why would you
> be Wonging in at +1 if it tells you to wait
> for +2?

Oh. The +1 wong-in point from chapter 13 got stuck in my head; for some dumb reason, I thought it would remain the same even with a smaller spread. Whoops.

Is there any way to estimate an exit point? I'm guessing that it would no longer be the -1 that's listed in chapter 13 for the 1-12 spread (for most of the deck levels).

pm

[Don Schlesinger]

> Oh. The +1 wong-in point from chapter 13 got
> stuck in my head; for some dumb reason, I
> thought it would remain the same even with a
> smaller spread. Whoops.

You're excused. By the way, I don't think we explored the optimal Wong-in point for the chapter 13 sims, although I may be wrong. I forget. I think, for the games selected, that we just decided to enter at +1, which is probably correct, in any event.

> Is there any way to estimate an exit point?
> I'm guessing that it would no longer be the
> -1 that's listed in chapter 13 for the 1-12
> spread (for most of the deck levels).

Not sure why you'd guess that. What would your guess be, higher or lower? I'd say you're fine with -1.

Don

[pm]

> You're excused. By the way, I don't think we
> explored the optimal Wong-in point for the
> chapter 13 sims, although I may be wrong. I
> forget. I think, for the games selected,
> that we just decided to enter at +1, which
> is probably correct, in any event.

I see.

> Not sure why you'd guess that. What would
> your guess be, higher or lower? I'd say
> you're fine with -1.

> Don

The only thing that worried me was that when BJRM calculated everything optimally and I then manually entered a unit bet at -1, 0, and +1 counts, the growth rate went to "very low!". I tried playing around with the ramp but that didn't help any. I know that the real life performance wouldn't be that poor since you wouldn't be betting all the -1, 0, & +1 counts, but I have no idea how far off the mark this estimation is. Is it probably something not to lose any sleep over?

pm

[Don Schlesinger]

> The only thing that worried me was that when
> BJRM calculated everything optimally and I
> then manually entered a unit bet at -1, 0,
> and +1 counts, the growth rate went to
> "very low!".

Because with such a low spread, a one-unit bet is still important and expected to be made only in advantageous situations. You can't be betting one unit at 0 and -1. It ruins the SCORE and the ramp.

> I tried playing
> around with the ramp but that didn't help
> any. I know that the real life performance
> wouldn't be that poor since you wouldn't be
> betting all the -1, 0, & +1 counts,

Unfortunately, with BJRM it's all or nothing, so you can't fudge it.

> but
> I have no idea how far off the mark this
> estimation is. Is it probably something not
> to lose any sleep over?

Hard to say. The lower the spread, the more important it is NOT to be when you do'nt have the edge.

Don

[pm]

> Because with such a low spread, a one-unit
> bet is still important and expected to be
> made only in advantageous situations. You
> can't be betting one unit at 0 and -1. It
> ruins the SCORE and the ramp.

> Unfortunately, with BJRM it's all or
> nothing, so you can't fudge it.

> Hard to say. The lower the spread, the more
> important it is NOT to be when you do'nt
> have the edge.

> Don

So then waiting till -1 to exit could potentially be dangerous? Would I have to sim this situation to know for sure?

pm

[Don Schlesinger]

> So then waiting till -1 to exit could
> potentially be dangerous? Would I have to
> sim this situation to know for sure?

Yes, I'm afraid you would. Don't forget that waiting until -1 while backcounting sometimes meant in our study waiting but NOT playing. if you were standing, it was when you moved on to scout another table, and, when you were sitting, and in the "twilight zone," it meant not leaving but not betting -- if you could get away with that.

So, don't confuse the optimal way to back-count with the optimal way to bet while trying not to get thrown out! The latter has a price attached to it.

Don

[pm]

> Yes, I'm afraid you would.

I got CVData a couple of days ago, but I'm afraid to use it because I have this feeling that I'll screw something up. It doesn't help that I have an old PIII 450, either.

Hey Norm, how long do you think it would take to run a decent sim on a piece of junk like that?

> Don't forget that
> waiting until -1 while backcounting
> sometimes meant in our study waiting but NOT
> playing. if you were standing, it was when
> you moved on to scout another table, and,
> when you were sitting, and in the
> "twilight zone," it meant not
> leaving but not betting -- if you could get
> away with that.

> So, don't confuse the optimal way to
> back-count with the optimal way to bet while
> trying not to get thrown out! The latter has
> a price attached to it.

Yes, I definitely didn't forget that you mention that the "WiWo" style is the best realistic backcounting method. I started worrying about its price becoming too great if I tried to use it with a small spread and I didn't get the correct unit, ramp, and entry/exit points. Hopefully I can figure out that information definitively with CVData. Boy, what a hassle. Oh well

pm

[Norm Wattenberger]

> It doesn't
> help that I have an old PIII 450, either.
> Hey Norm, how long do you think it would
> take to run a decent sim on a piece of junk
> like that?

Some of the original CVCX sims were run on a PIII 300. CVBJ V1 was developed on a 16Mhz PC.