MJ: CVData ?

[MJ]

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

[Norm Wattenberger]

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

[MJ]

> 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.

[Don Schlesinger]

> 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

[MJ]

> 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

[Norm Wattenberger]

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.

[Don Schlesinger]

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

[Faro]

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?

[Don Schlesinger]

> 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?

Technically, there is a difference, but it is very slight. I addressed this very issue in BJA3, but, it's a long chapter, and I can't find the exact page reference at the moment. Perhaps someone can track it down.

Don

[Faro]

> Technically, there is a difference, but it is very
> slight. I addressed this very issue in BJA3, but, it's
> a long chapter, and I can't find the exact page
> reference at the moment. Perhaps someone can track it
> down.

> Don

Don,

Nice to hear from you. I use the Griffin-3 with a side count of aces and appreciate the tabulated results in BJA. On a different issue:

Comparing BJA Table 10.18 (p. 205) to Griffins' 100% efficient calculations (Griffin p. 120,128,228) I arrive at some differences. If I assume Griffins' 1/8 spread for 4.5/6.90 S17, DAS, LS with his surrender strategy (.16 above basic for single deck) assumptions I get 1.45% with resplit of A's permitted. If I take your frequency distribution column of table 10.18 I get .775% for a 1/8 play all (average bet works out to 2.863 if my hand calculations are correct). I assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I have paper traded blackjack for 350 hours over the past two months. Largest drawdown is 481 units end of session peak to valley. I have doubled 3 400 unit banks for a total of 350 hours and 1222 units or 3.49 units per hour (assuming approximately 150 hands per hour). Most of the paper traded simulation was for 55-70% DD H17, DAS. My numbers are in line with Griffins' linear correlation studies. I just wanted to perform his so called "John Henry versus Steam Engine" study (Griffin p. 61). Instead of Griffins' 5,000 hand study I estimate I played 53,000 hands. My results are in allignment with Griffins calculations under these ideal conditions.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don,

> Nice to hear from you. I use the Griffin-3 with a side
> count of aces and appreciate the tabulated results in
> BJA. On a different issue:

> Comparing BJA Table 10.18 (p. 205)

Hmm. Second edition? Pity. You deserve better than that! :-)

> to Griffins' 100%
> efficient calculations (Griffin p. 120,128,228)

Surely not for what we were doing. Griffin gives no such calculations, just approximations.

> I arrive at some differences.

I would imagine so! :-)

> If I assume Griffins' 1/8
> spread for 4.5/6 S17, DAS, LS with his surrender
> strategy (.16 above basic for single deck)

But, we're not talking about single deck.

> assumptions
> I get 1.45% with resplit of A's permitted.

In no edition of my book did we simulate resplit of aces. In BJA3, Table 10.51, p. 240, is for 4.5/6, S17, DAS, LS.

> If I take
> your frequency distribution column of table 10.18 I
> get .775% for a 1/8 play all

It's 0.80% edge, but the number has little meaning, as all that matters is the SCORE.

> (average bet works out to
> 2.863 if my hand calculations are correct). I assume
> the truth is somewhere in the middle.

If the 2.863 is supposed to be units, it's much too high. It's 2.17, but, again, for no rsa.

> I have paper traded blackjack for 350 hours over the
> past two months.

No, you've paper-played! Trading is another venture! ;-)

> Largest drawdown is 481 units end of
> session peak to valley. I have doubled 3 400 unit
> banks for a total of 350 hours and 1222 units or 3.49
> units per hour (assuming approximately 150 hands per
> hour). Most of the paper traded simulation was for
> 55-70% DD H17, DAS. My numbers are in line with
> Griffins' linear correlation studies.

Strong suggestion: Get CV (go to qfit.com) and join the 21st century! You'll be happy that you did.

> I just wanted to
> perform his so called "John Henry versus Steam
> Engine" study (Griffin p. 61). Instead of
> Griffins' 5,000 hand study I estimate I played 53,000
> hands. My results are in alignment with Griffin's
> calculations under these ideal conditions.

I understand that you're an "old-timer," but do yourself a favor and get BJA3 and Norm's Casino Verite products. You'll have more fun "playing"; I promise.

Don

[Faro]

> Hmm. Second edition? Pity. You deserve better than
> that! :-)

> Surely not for what we were doing. Griffin gives no
> such calculations, just approximations.

> I would imagine so! :-)

> But, we're not talking about single deck.

> In no edition of my book did we simulate resplit of
> aces. In BJA3, Table 10.51, p. 240, is for 4.5/6, S17,
> DAS, LS.

> It's 0.80% edge, but the number has little meaning, as
> all that matters is the SCORE.

> If the 2.863 is supposed to be units, it's much too
> high. It's 2.17, but, again, for no rsa.

> No, you've paper- played! Trading is another venture!
> ;-)

> Strong suggestion: Get CV (go to qfit.com) and join
> the 21st century! You'll be happy that you did.

> I understand that you're an "old-timer," but
> do yourself a favor and get BJA3 and Norm's Casino
> Verite products. You'll have more fun
> "playing"; I promise.

> Don

Oh,

I do not know what CV is, I will look into it. Old timer is right, it's been awhile. The 6 deck game for play all is so dissapointing when you look at the numbers. My practice play is quite to the contrary but I can easily imagine how the big swings can come into playl

[Faro]

> Hmm. Second edition? Pity. You deserve better than
> that! :-)

> Surely not for what we were doing. Griffin gives no
> such calculations, just approximations.

> I would imagine so! :-)

> But, we're not talking about single deck.

> In no edition of my book did we simulate resplit of
> aces. In BJA3, Table 10.51, p. 240, is for 4.5/6, S17,
> DAS, LS.

> It's 0.80% edge, but the number has little meaning, as
> all that matters is the SCORE.

> If the 2.863 is supposed to be units, it's much too
> high. It's 2.17, but, again, for no rsa.

> No, you've paper- played! Trading is another venture!
> ;-)

> Strong suggestion: Get CV (go to qfit.com) and join
> the 21st century! You'll be happy that you did.

> I understand that you're an "old-timer," but
> do yourself a favor and get BJA3 and Norm's Casino
> Verite products. You'll have more fun
> "playing"; I promise.

> Don

I apologize for the frequent postings. I went to look at the CV, impressive but I think I will pass; I am sure the training module would more than pay for the software by catching my mistakes.

Not to hype but I want to try and make clear what I am trying to say. Based on the advantage late surrender offers the card counter over the basic player, a six deck game offering DAS,LS,RSA such as the Bellagio with 75% delt, the off the top disadvantage to the player is .26% (according to Wong's monthly report on Casino conditions).
Griffins approximations to the 6 deck game would give a .69 efficient strategy system about .15 added value over the card counter. If one then incorporates the surrender advantage to the card count of say .1% then one can say the Bellagio 6 deck game is about even for the card counter. In other words flat betting the shoe would break even. I do not actually believe this since the surrender advantage kicks in during high counts primarily and basic surrender advantage of .07 is probably correct for true counts between say -2 to +2. Additionally strategic and betting advantage are more prominent the further one goes in the deck since Griffins' mathematics follow exponential statistics.

Bottom line I think finding a game worth playing prohibits any real money being made at blackjack.