If anyone has any suggestions for CVCX V4; now would be the time.
Serious Blackjack Software
If anyone has any suggestions for CVCX V4; now would be the time.
Serious Blackjack Software
Include support for half counts. It would be nice to see optimal bet schedules given in increments of 0.5 rather than having to double tag values and then divide by 2.
Allow for comparison of optimal bet schedule and custom bet schedule on the chart it feature.
Allow for comparison of balanced and unbalanced counts using the chart it feature when wonging is employed. The user should be able to set a different wong in point for each count and then chart the performance of each system on the same graph.
Allow user to restrict the range of penetration for the chart it feature on the x axis. IE, restrict the penetration to 52 to 104 cards. I believe the user can restrict the upper end but not the lower end.
Most importantly, I would like all values to be given in $ and not units. Why should SCORE be given in $, but SD in units? Same goes for the calculators. Most people think in terms of dollars, not units. BJRM gives everything in dollars and cents which makes things much more straight forward.
For the simulations; in addition to round to even, the conventional method of rounding should be an option as this the type of rounding most players use at the tables.
Finally, it would be interesting to see SCORE and optimal bets for switching back and forth between 1 and 2 hands with other players at the table.
Good luck!
MJ
Norm,
Three suggestions for CVCX V4:
1. Allow the user to compare results with various numbers of other players. Perhaps you could add a "spinner" for the user to select the number of players? Currently, I have to run separate sims to see the differences in heads up play vs. play with one or more other players.
2. Expand the penetration ranges in both directions. While in practice I'd like to see the casinos deepen the pen, for simulation purposes I'd like to be able to investigate both amazingly good and stunningly bad penetration.
3. Incorporate side bets and bonuses, like you have in CVData.
Dog Hand
Add a feature that enables the user to enhance or reduce EV and other related statistics (SCORE, CE, etc) by a fixed percentage. BJRM has this feature and JA suggests players penalize their EV to account for player errors in live play. Users may even want to enhance EV in case they use a free ace coupon, use a few extra index plays but do not want to rerun the sim, or they have some other advantage not accounted for in the simulation.
MJ
> 1. Allow the user to compare results with various
> numbers of other players. Perhaps you could add a
> "spinner" for the user to select the number
> of players? Currently, I have to run separate sims to
> see the differences in heads up play vs. play with one
> or more other players.
Interesting idea. It would dramatically increase the time to run sims as separate sims would be required for each number of players. I'd find it of interest though.
> 2. Expand the penetration ranges in both directions.
> While in practice I'd like to see the casinos deepen
> the pen, for simulation purposes I'd like to be able
> to investigate both amazingly good and stunningly bad
> penetration.
Do you see beyond 5.5/6?
> 3. Incorporate side bets and bonuses, like you have in
> CVData.
If you have CVData and CVCX; CVCX will support the common bonuses. But it's designed as the simple sim of the pair.
thanks,
norm
I find this as entirely inaccurate. I'd rather people use CVData to get the real answers.
> Add a feature that enables the user to enhance or
> reduce EV and other related statistics (SCORE, CE,
> etc) by a fixed percentage. BJRM has this feature and
> JA suggests players penalize their EV to account for
> player errors in live play. Users may even want to
> enhance EV in case they use a free ace coupon, use a
> few extra index plays but do not want to rerun the
> sim, or they have some other advantage not accounted
> for in the simulation.
> MJ
> I find this as entirely inaccurate. I'd rather people
> use CVData to get the real answers.
I don't know if I would go that far. While the EV adjustment might not be accurate right down to the hundredths place, it can still provide a decent ballpark figure. Players can have a good idea of how their EV is affected by some other factor which a simulation cannot account for (theft, lawsuits, confiscated chips). CVData might be capable of simulating errors, but sometimes players need to adjust EV for other reasons. Why do you think BJRM 2002 has the Adjust EV field in the OSS?
MJ
Adjust the EV where? If you are talking about theft, lawsuits, confiscations; just deduct from the Win Rate at the end of the calculation. This is far more accurate than fiddling with the EV and doesn't destroy the optimal bet calculations. If you are talking about errors or cover; these have far more complex interactions than deducting from the EV. They affect EV and standard deviation differently for different true counts and very differently for different numbers of players in the case of cover. CVData is designed to simulate these effects. I don't like the concept of arbitrarily changing overall EV after the billions of rounds that go into making accurate calculations. Gotta be a better way.
> I don't know if I would go that far. While the EV
> adjustment might not be accurate right down to the
> hundredths place, it can still provide a decent
> ballpark figure. Players can have a good idea of how
> their EV is affected by some other factor which a
> simulation cannot account for (theft, lawsuits,
> confiscated chips). CVData might be capable of
> simulating errors, but sometimes players need to
> adjust EV for other reasons. Why do you think BJRM
> 2002 has the Adjust EV field in the OSS?
> MJ
Expand bet spread from 1 to 100 to 1 to 200. If you can't, no big deal.
Make it possible to compare 2 custom bet schedules on the chart it feature, regardless of whether or not they are balanced or unbalanced.
Try to expand on the multiplier feature for the TC conversion. When I divide by 3.5, I multiply by 3 and then subtract 1/4. Currently, the software does not permit this type of calculation.
Lastly, for the standard deviation graphs/charts, the software does not seem to label anything except for the mean. I would like to see the labeling of the bell curve expanded to depict +/- 1 to 3 standard deviations from the mean; all to be shown at once on the same bell curve. Further, I don't think there is any label at all for the y-axis. The y-axis should be labeled by default, just as it is with the SCORE charts.
When I mentioned half counts, I also should have specified to permit indices that use decimals, like 0.5.
All of these are rather minor, but some are more important then others. I look forward to the update. Keep us posted!
MJ
I'll squeeze in what I can.
For pen, I have noticed that single and double deck allow for the range of 50% to 75% pen only. How about DD with 40% pen or 80% pen (yes... I've seen both recently)? How about SD dealt to the last card, so we can relive the "glory days"?
For 6D, 5.5/6 is the best I've seen, but how about 3.0/6 for when we get half-shoed in AC?
How difficult would it be to allow ANY pen from 1 card to 100%?
As for varying the number of players, why would you need to run a separate sim for each number... because the distribution of TC's will change?
For the most part, when I use CVCX I'm running only a single set of rules, so increasing the run time from 1 minute to 7 minutes would be fine by me. Maybe you could make this "Varying Number of Players" an option on the setup, so those running a huge set of sims can elect not to use it?
Dog Hand
> For pen, I have noticed that single and double deck
> allow for the range of 50% to 75% pen only. How about
> DD with 40% pen or 80% pen (yes... I've seen both
> recently)? How about SD dealt to the last card, so we
> can relive the "glory days"?
Too lateBut CVCX is not really meant for oddball games. That's CVData.
> As for varying the number of players, why would you
> need to run a separate sim for each number... because
> the distribution of TC's will change?
Three reasons. First is there is an advantage sitting at third base with multiple players that is different for each number of players. Second; it dramatically affects single deck TC frequencies. The third is an affect on a new feature I'll talk about soon.
> For the most part, when I use CVCX I'm running only a
> single set of rules, so increasing the run time from 1
> minute to 7 minutes would be fine by me. Maybe you
> could make this "Varying Number of Players"
> an option on the setup, so those running a huge set of
> sims can elect not to use it?
I set it up so you can specify a number of players and optionally also sim heads-up. This allows you to quickly see if there is an effect in the set of circumstances that you you are examining.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks