Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 23 of 23

Thread: MJ: CVData ?

  1. #14
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: 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?

    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

  2. #15
    MJ
    Guest

    MJ: Re: 2 questions for Norm

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

    Not quite sure what that means. Allow me to clarify.

    Suppose you wanted to run a Goal/ROR simulation using the ODPs for the 6 penetration levels. I believe CVData can handle this.

    Now, could you take it one step further and run a Goal/ROR simulation that incorporates the six ODPs as well as six different bankroll controlled betting strategies? The idea is that we use the ODPs and vary the bet schedule as our BR fluctuates up and down.

    MJ

  3. #16
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: 2 questions for Norm

    Bankroll controlled betting and departure by depth are mutually-exclusive features.

    > Not quite sure what that means. Allow me to clarify.

    > Suppose you wanted to run a Goal/ROR simulation using
    > the ODPs for the 6 penetration levels. I believe
    > CVData can handle this.

    > Now, could you take it one step further and run a
    > Goal/ROR simulation that incorporates the six ODPs as
    > well as six different bankroll controlled betting
    > strategies? The idea is that we use the ODPs and vary
    > the bet schedule as our BR fluctuates up and down.

    > MJ

  4. #17
    Faro
    Guest

    Faro: Re: CVData ?

    > 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.

  5. #18
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVData ?

    > 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

  6. #19
    Faro
    Guest

    Faro: Re: CVData ?

    > 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

  7. #20
    Faro
    Guest

    Faro: Re: CVData ?

    > 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.

  8. #21
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVData ?

    With all due respect, you are very, very much out of touch with most of the recent literature.

    And, you are not quoting Griffin for a bet spread of,say, 1-12 or 1-16, which is necessary for the play-all shoe games.

    Don

  9. #22
    Faro
    Guest

    Faro: Re: CVData ?

    > With all due respect, you are very, very much out of
    > touch with most of the recent literature.

    > And, you are not quoting Griffin for a bet spread
    > of,say, 1-12 or 1-16, which is necessary for the
    > play-all shoe games.

    > Don

    I just tabulated 333 hours of DD play onto a histogram of units won/lost per session. It follows the normal distribution espoused by Uston in his book "Million Dollar Blackjack". It also coincides with your blackjack simulation. For the 6 deck game the numbers I am reading in the literature that I do have are discouraging, they just do not agree with my 70 hours of recorded simulated play. My results are about 2 to 3 standard deviations on the plus side. Most likely I am overbetting my simulated bankroll.

    I just find Griffin's mathematical treatment of the game very interesting and some missing surrender numbers for when dealer hits soft 17 are presented that I can use. A strange play indicated is to surrender a 17 versus an A for S17 at +2 or for H17 at -1.

  10. #23
    robert pawluk
    Guest

    robert pawluk: blackjack simulations

    Anyone interested in running computer simulation for a new blackjack game. Fee associated with this, of course and possibility to make more money on the back end. Rob Pawluk
    702.884.4462. If anyone knows someone who does this and would enjoy working on this small project, let me know. I know how to return a favor.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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.