Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 20

Thread: MJ: CVCX SE

  1. #1
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: CVCX SE

    Does it make sense to have a SE of $15 and a SCORE of $82.16? The SE is about 18% of SCORE. Backcount and Play 2 Hands was selected.

    Further, the SE for WR is $26 and the WR is $144. SE is awfully high in both cases. How does the software calculate SE for WR?

    BTW, shouldn't there be a legend for Optimal vs Custom chart? Please fix.

    MJ

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVCX SE

    > Does it make sense to have a SE of $15 and a SCORE of
    > $82.16? The SE is about 18% of SCORE. Backcount and
    > Play 2 Hands was selected.

    No, of course not. I'm guessing that the $15 is 15 cents or some such scaling error.

    Don

  3. #3
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: CVCX SE

    > Does it make sense to have a SE of $15 and a SCORE of
    > $82.16? The SE is about 18% of SCORE. Backcount and
    > Play 2 Hands was selected.

    > Further, the SE for WR is $26 and the WR is $144. SE
    > is awfully high in both cases. How does the software
    > calculate SE for WR?

    I would need to know all of the settings. If backcount was set to a high count, there wouldn't be many hands and SE would skyrocket. Send me namessim.dat.

    > BTW, shouldn't there be a legend for Optimal vs Custom
    > chart? Please fix.

    No room on the main screen. Besides, the dropdown is the legend.

  4. #4
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: CVCX SE

    Ahh, misunderstood what you meant by legend. Yes, it makes sense to add a legend for that one chart.

  5. #5
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: CVCX SE

    > No, of course not. I'm guessing that the $15 is 15
    > cents or some such scaling error.

    What I posted is correct. What I did not mention is that the bet spread was set to 40. On CVCX, the SE increases as the bet spread increases. Does that make sense?

    With a 10 to 1 spread the SE for WR is $7.11 and the SE for SCORE is 3.00. The WR is $193 and SCORE is 81.36. The SE for WR is about 3.6% of WR and the SE for SCORE is 3.7% of SCORE.

    In order to have confidence in WR and SCORE, at most what % of WR and SCORE should the SE be?

    There is a blatant error I am observing. When I select manually adjust minimum bets and increase the minimum bet from $100 to $101, the SE jumps from $6.53 to $17.79 in the Custom Row. The SE for SCORE goes from 3.82 to 5.89. But for all practical purposes the SE of the Optimal row is unchanged. I don't see why Manually Adj Minimum Bet should have any bearing on the SE for the Custom Row. Please advise.

    MJ


  6. #6
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: CVCX SE

    > In order to have confidence in WR and SCORE, at most
    > what % of WR and SCORE should the SE be?

    It could be infinite percent. You are looking for a common sense rule of thumb that doesn't exist.

    > There is a blatant error I am observing. When I select
    > manually adjust minimum bets and increase the minimum
    > bet from $100 to $101, the SE jumps from $6.53 to
    > $17.79 in the Custom Row. The SE for SCORE goes from
    > 3.82 to 5.89. But for all practical purposes the SE of
    > the Optimal row is unchanged. I don't see why Manually
    > Adj Minimum Bet should have any bearing on the SE for
    > the Custom Row. Please advise.

    This is possible. But again, I need to know every setting. E-mail namessim.dat or a screenshot.

  7. #7
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Questions for Don and Norm

    > This is possible. But again, I need to know every
    > setting. E-mail namessim.dat or a screenshot.

    I'll post the screen shots soon.

    If sample size is adequate, how could the SE be infinite % of SCORE or WR?

    But for now, I would like a bit more information on interpreting SE in simulations. Here is what I understand thus far.

    If we were to run 2 identical simulations at 1 billion rounds each, the Win rates would not be exactly the same. The reason for this is because our samples are not perfect representations of the population. In this case, the population is infinite rounds of BJ. Obviously, we cannot simulate infinite rounds so we must settle upon taking a sample of the population and hope that it representative of the population.

    So, after running 2 one billion round simulations, we come up with 2 sample Win rates. Let us say the WRs are $50 and $51 and each has an SE of $2. Now, how do we know what the theoretical WR is for the system in question? Should we assume it lies somewhere between $50 and $51?

    CAN WE EVEN USE SE TO COME UP WITH A PROBABLE RANGE OF WHERE THE THEORETICAL WR SHOULD FALL? If so, please explain how to do so.

    Let me simplify things a bit. Suppose I only run one simulation and the WR is $50 and the SE is $1. Now, how do I know how close the sample WR is to the theoretical WR? Is there a 99.7% chance of the sample WR being within +/- $3 of the theoretical WR?

    I guess I am seeking guidance on how to use SE to draw intelligent conclusions about the validity of my results.

    PS You should update the Help files to describe SE.

    PSS Don't forget to add back the HTD column. In the case of a custom bet schedule, I have no way to compare HTD for optimal and custom without it.

    MJ

  8. #8
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Questions for Don and Norm

    > I'll post the screen shots soon.

    > If sample size is adequate, how could the SE be
    > infinite % of SCORE or WR?

    If the SCORE is zero, the SE is an infinite % of SCORE with any finite number of rounds. It makes no sense to talk about the ratio between SCORE and SE of SCORE. Particularly if you are inputting circumstances that are highly unusual.

    You are looking at extreme cases. When backcounting with a Spread of 40 and a hi TC; expect a high SE. If your purpose is to 'break' the software by testing weird cases - that's fine and I am happy to look at what happens with wild inputs. But, if you're looking for rules of thumb that work in extreme cases - there aren't any. A good rule of thumb is that rules of thumb only work well for normal situations.

  9. #9
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: Questions for Don and Norm

    > If the SCORE is zero, the SE is an infinite % of SCORE
    > with any finite number of rounds. It makes no sense to
    > talk about the ratio between SCORE and SE of SCORE.
    > Particularly if you are inputting circumstances that
    > are highly unusual.

    The 40 to 1 spread I input was for play all and I accidentally left it the same for backcounting. Disregard the the inquiry regarding the 40 to 1 spread as it is unrealistic.

    But the SE's I mentioned for the 10 to 1 spread are fair game as this spread is not atypical. Is the ratio of SE SCORE to that of SCORE ever meaningful? In this case it is 2.9%.

    Also, the problem I mentioned when adjusting the minimum bet is there even for a 8 to 1 spread.

    > You are looking at extreme cases. When backcounting
    > with a Spread of 40 and a hi TC; expect a high SE. If
    > your purpose is to 'break' the software by testing
    > weird cases - that's fine and I am happy to look at
    > what happens with wild inputs.

    Not concerned with extreme cases. See above.

    > A good rule of thumb is that rules of
    > thumb only work well for normal situations.

    Ok that is what I am interested in. For example, wonging in at TC of +2 and spreading from 1 to 8 or 1 to 10 while playing 2 hands.

    I am seeking some guidelines for interpreting the validity of my results when using SE. Can SE give me any idea regarding the probable range of where the theoretical WR lies?

    MJ

  10. #10
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Here is the image


    Now, just click on Manually Adj Min Bet and increase it to $126. Watch what happens to the Custom SE for WR!!! Even if you drop it back down to $125, it still remains inflated. The only way to reduce it is to lower the spread or turn off the Adj Min Bet feature.

    On another note, why does the software spread 1 to 5 when I specify 1 to 8? The minimum bet is $200 and max is $1000. The software says the min is $125 but it doesn't bet that as the minimum!

    Also, why is SCORE higher for the Custom and not Optimal? I thought Optimal is the Optimal SCORE. Apparently that is not always the case.

    MJ




  11. #11
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Questions for Don and Norm

    > I am seeking some guidelines for interpreting the
    > validity of my results when using SE. Can SE give me
    > any idea regarding the probable range of where the
    > theoretical WR lies?

    Yes, the probable range is WR - SE of WR to WR + SE of WR.

    No ratios involved.

  12. #12
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Here is the image

    > Now, just click on Manually Adj Min Bet and increase
    > it to $126. Watch what happens to the Custom SE for
    > WR!!! Even if you drop it back down to $125, it still
    > remains inflated. The only way to reduce it is to
    > lower the spread or turn off the Adj Min Bet feature.

    CVCX is trying to create an optimal betting ramp which matches all of your input. It has to balance between the demands of a set RoR and set min chip size. It is not possible to create a ramp that results in exactly the requested RoR while requiring the requested min chip size. So it makes compromises. Now when you force a new min bet that is not a multiple of the min chip size; it is getting contradictory demands. It also may find that the change forces a substantially different min bet in order to remain reasonably close to the requested RoR. So there is a large swing in min bet size that occurs at some point in penetration and/or spread and/or bankroll, etc. That is, the curves are no longer smooth but become ratcheted. If you reduce the min chip size to 1, the ratcheting will go away.

    > On another note, why does the software spread 1 to 5
    > when I specify 1 to 8? The minimum bet is $200 and max
    > is $1000. The software says the min is $125 but it
    > doesn't bet that as the minimum!

    When backcounting, the software found a higher SCORE. When you start removing hands with little or no advantage, it just doesn't make sense to ever lower your bet to the theoretic minimum.

    > Also, why is SCORE higher for the Custom and not
    > Optimal? I thought Optimal is the Optimal SCORE.
    > Apparently that is not always the case.

    Look at the RoRs. The min chip size you set forces the software to vary from requested RoR. The ratchets in the curves for optimal and betting are at different points. You picked a point where RoR was high for one and low for the other.

    All of this goes away with a min chip size of 1. The problem in a casino is you can't bet oddball bets. So CVCX does what it can to balance between reasonable bets and optimal bets given the inputted specs. It actually doesn't affect the SCORE a great deal. But win rate and RoR bounce around as you change settings.

  13. #13
    Magician
    Guest

    Magician: Re: Questions for Don and Norm

    > But for now, I would like a bit more information on
    > interpreting SE in simulations [...]

    > CAN WE EVEN USE SE TO COME UP WITH A PROBABLE RANGE OF
    > WHERE THE THEORETICAL WR SHOULD FALL? If so, please
    > explain how to do so [...]

    > I guess I am seeking guidance on how to use SE to draw
    > intelligent conclusions about the validity of my
    > results.

    Why did you argue so forcefully for the addition of SE to simulations when you didn't know what to do with it?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.