Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 23

Thread: MJ: CVData ?

  1. #1
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: CVData ?

    Norm,

    I would like to generate some reverse wonging points (white rabbit) for an 8-deck game with 1 deck cutoff. The software allows for specification of 6 penetration levels. So, assuming I used flooring to estimate the discard rack, that means the 6th penetration level would cover cards 260 to 364, or decks 5 through 7. I feel like precision is being lost for this final portion of the shoe as we are clumping 2 decks worth into this final interval.

    Is this anything to be concerned about? If so, consider increasing the # of penetration levels.

    A while back I asked about including a feature which permits the specification of departure points while observing as well as lag time to find a new shoe. Any luck?

    MJ

  2. #2
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: CVData ?

    Make the first penetration level the 1st and 2nd decks. Hard to believe this would be measurably different from using different numbers for the first and second decks.

    I need to finish another project before making any significant changes to CVData.

    > Norm,

    > I would like to generate some reverse wonging points
    > (white rabbit) for an 8-deck game with 1 deck cutoff.
    > The software allows for specification of 6 penetration
    > levels. So, assuming I used flooring to estimate the
    > discard rack, that means the 6th penetration level
    > would cover cards 260 to 364, or decks 5 through 7. I
    > feel like precision is being lost for this final
    > portion of the shoe as we are clumping 2 decks worth
    > into this final interval.

    > Is this anything to be concerned about? If so,
    > consider increasing the # of penetration levels.

    > A while back I asked about including a feature which
    > permits the specification of departure points while
    > observing as well as lag time to find a new shoe. Any
    > luck?

    > MJ

  3. #3
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: CVData ?

    > Make the first penetration level the 1st and 2nd
    > decks. Hard to believe this would be measurably
    > different from using different numbers for the first
    > and second decks.

    Good idea! :-)

    A while back, I actually attempted to generate some optimal departure points for a 6 deck game using a reverse wonging strategy with a lag time. As per your suggestion, I generated the numbers starting at the last penetration level and worked backward. The ODPs for KO became lower and lower with each successive penetration level (again, going in reverse), as one might expect from the BJA3 ODP study.

    But, once the final penetration level was reached (the first deck or so), there was no ODP that would increase the SCORE! In other words, it became more profitable not to wong out for the first deck and just play through regardless how low the RC went! Does that make sense?

    BTW, for any given playing and betting strategy, shouldn't the ODPs generated from last to first penetration level be the same as those generated from the first to last penetration level? It would be interesting to try it both ways and see if the ODPs work out to be the same.

  4. #4
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVData ?

    > But, once the final penetration level was reached (the
    > first deck or so), there was no ODP that would
    > increase the SCORE! In other words, it became more
    > profitable not to wong out for the first deck and just
    > play through regardless how low the RC went! Does that
    > make sense?

    Not the least bit. Suppose the TC after one deck is, say, -4. What sense would it make to suppose that you're better off staying and playing a, say, 3.5/5 game with a TC of -4 than you are getting up and starting a fresh shoe?

    Don

  5. #5
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: CVData ?

    > Not the least bit. Suppose the TC after one deck is,
    > say, -4. What sense would it make to suppose that
    > you're better off staying and playing a, say, 3.5/5
    > game with a TC of -4 than you are getting up and
    > starting a fresh shoe?

    You are saying if the count dives extremely south in the early going, there is no point in remaining at the table. Intuitively, this makes sense.

    Hmmmm...the only plausible explanation that I can think of to explain what occurred is the fact the the ODPs were generated in reverse order. Although the points decreased rapidly for the latter part of the shoe (again, assuming we start at deck 4.5 and generate ODPs working backward) there was little to no difference between the ODPs by the time the 3rd and 2nd deck were reached. No difference at all between the 2nd and 1st deck. So, by the time it came down to deck 0.5, every drop of SCORE was already squeezed out of the game and no ODP existed that would enhance it further.

    As the study proceeded, I noticed that the SCORE values adhered to the law of diminishing returns. That is to say the increase in SCORE from one penetration level to the next became smaller and smaller until finally, by the time deck 0.5 was reached, SCORE had already reached a maximum value.

    The penetration levels used were for the following decks: 4.5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.5.

    The ODP(s) from prior penetration levels were plugged into the sim to try and generate the ODP for the next penetration level. Norm suggested this approach, it made sense, so I used it.

    I could be wrong, but my thinking here is that if the ODPs were generated in forward order rather than reverse order, we would see the same effect by the time the final penetration level was reached, deck 4.5, and there would be no ODP which would produce a higher SCORE than that at deck 4.0.

    I am not sure why it works this way, but that was my finding. Again, intuition would tell us that there must be an ODP which would enhance SCORE for the last penetration level, regardless of which order ODPs are generated, but, sometimes intuition can lead us astray.

    Hopefully, Norm will lend us his expert opinion on this matter.

    MJ

  6. #6
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: CVData ?

    Forward/backwards is the same. In the first deck, you will rarely see a very negative TC. If you do, it will be at the very end and you will Wong out immediately in the 2nd deck.


  7. #7
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVData ?

    I think you're reading the answers backwards!

    See BJA3, p. 362. As you can see, after remaining reasonably steady, the graph starts to increase for the ODP, as you get later in the pack.

    Norm states that extreme negative counts are rare in the first deck, but that begs the question. The question is, if you encounter one, why in the world would you remain at the shoe? The answer is that you wouldn't.

    Don

  8. #8
    Faro
    Guest

    Faro: Re: CVData ?

    Speaking of when to leave.... The departure points, do they work if you are not sitting at the game but watching for a good count to enter? In other words, if one is back counting a shoe, should one leave this shoe to find a new game when a departure point is indicated?

  9. #9
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: 2 questions for Norm

    > I think you're reading the answers backwards!

    Right.

    > See BJA3, p. 362. As you can see, after remaining
    > reasonably steady, the graph starts to increase for
    > the ODP, as you get later in the pack.

    The reason I read my findings backward is because I generated the ODPs going in reverse order. If you want to go in forward order, then yes, the ODPs increased as you go later into the shoe.

    > Norm states that extreme negative counts are rare in
    > the first deck, but that begs the question. The
    > question is, if you encounter one, why in the world
    > would you remain at the shoe? The answer is that you
    > wouldn't.

    That makes sense. But why then didn't the simulations provide an ODP which would increase the SCORE further for the final penetration level, deck 0.5?

    In the BJA3 ODP study, there was an ODP given for the final penetration level for all the scenarios. If no ODP existed for the beginning of the shoe, then surely team ODP would have reported it.

    Also, if the ODPs are the same regardless if you go in forward or reverse order, then why did you suggest generating them in reverse order?

  10. #10
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: 2 questions for Norm

    > That makes sense. But why then didn't the simulations
    > provide an ODP which would increase the SCORE further
    > for the final penetration level, deck 0.5?

    What level is this?

    > Also, if the ODPs are the same regardless if you go in
    > forward or reverse order, then why did you suggest
    > generating them in reverse order?

    You get the same numbers, but one way is faster.

  11. #11
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: 2 questions for Norm

    > What level is this?

    Cards 1-24 (the final penetration level working backward) in the discard rack comprised deck 0.5.


  12. #12
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: 2 questions for Norm

    > What level is this?

    Penetration level 6, the last one.

    On a different note, for the simulation of Goal/ROR, is it possible to run a simulation with a betting strategy that takes into account 6 different penetration levels as well as 6 different bankrolls?

  13. #13
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: 2 questions for Norm

    > Penetration level 6, the last one.

    I think you are over-analyzing this. I can't imagine setting another wong-out point for those cards making a difference.

    > On a different note, for the simulation of Goal/ROR,
    > is it possible to run a simulation with a betting
    > strategy that takes into account 6 different
    > penetration levels as well as 6 different bankrolls?

    If you mean six different bankroll-controlled betting strategies and six different non-bankroll-controlled betting strategies at one time, that's contradictory.

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.