Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 44

Thread: Zenfighter: EoR's HITTING 17 - 12 Table 1

  1. #27
    bjmagic
    Guest

    bjmagic: Re: EoR's Table 3

    > DEALER TEN
    > HITTING 17 ? 12
    > 13 12
    > A 0.00847634 0.09782
    > 2 0.456437 0.452561
    > 3 0.404035 0.404137
    > 4 0.205549 0.465538
    > 5 -0.26448 0.236017
    > 6 -0.433355 0.035243
    > 7 -3.21515 -2.05502
    > 8 -3.47997 -2.5215
    > 9 0.88191 -2.85689
    > T 1.35957 1.43552
    > m 10.1258 13.5765
    > ss 31.28749 27.6371
    > Cks 0.00001334 -0.000014

    Unless I have a math error. I don't think that the EOR for hard 13 v T adds up to .00001334.

    My addition says .0017323.

    Am I confused or is this a typo.

    P.S. What's the possibility of getting a copy of these tables posted in excel.

  2. #28
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Nothing to worry

    Surprised by your Cks result, I?ve redone the whole table again with exactly the same results as printed. All the entries are fine. I couldn?t believe my eyes, given that I double checked all ss and Cks. Despite the fact that any given EoR?s table is fair enough if the checksum stays within [+/- 0.01], for the tables printed a benchmark of 0.0000 accuracy was established. For handling these types of data, computer algorithms and/or powerful statistical calculators are better than standard pocket calculators, obviously.

    Maybe you?ll be able to perform a couple of calculations with Excel, but I?m afraid you have quite a bit of work in front of you. You?re alone on this.

    Enjoy the tables.

    Sincerely

    Z


  3. #29
    bjmagic
    Guest

    bjmagic: Re: EoR's Table 11

    > DEALER 3
    > HITTING 17 ? 12
    > 17 16
    > 15 14
    > A -1.90624 -1.45334 -1.01251 -0.857938
    > 2 -1.86041 -1.3045 -0.697699 -0.337793
    > 3 -2.3697 -2.06704 -1.45909 -0.81705
    > 4 -3.64045 -3.98711 -3.2493 -2.49714
    > 5 -1.06665 -4.46385 -3.71528 -2.95299
    > 6 -0.674933 -0.298143 -3.73405 -3.01373
    > 7 -0.229311 0.234025 -0.461686 -3.01093
    > 8 0.310966 0.683309 0.877153 1.07256
    > 9 2.04728 2.26886 2.26782 2.2675
    > T 2.34736 2.59695 2.56532 2.53688
    > m -41.4418 -21.3389
    > -15.549 -9.73056
    > ss 53.9375 76.6445
    > 74.3943 66.6568
    > Cks -0.000008 0.000011
    > 0.00001 0.000009

    In the above table the sings are incorrect on entry 7 v 15 This is just a typo but I thought I'd point it out.

    The correct version should have 7v15 positive .461686

  4. #30
    bjmagic
    Guest

    bjmagic: Re: Nothing to worry

    Just so you know what I was using it for. I was creating a spreadsheet in excel using your EOR numbers to calculate the gain for playing perfectly. Below is a representation of it. I can key in at the top my tag values for the system I am using and it will calculate the gain for me.

    I am interested in what the top 20 or so plays are for single deck games when you flat bet.

    Dealer T

    Total Cards 52
    Penetration 75% 13 32.5

    A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T J Q K
    Count Values 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0

    Effects of Removal Prob m SS Corr EOR Check
    Hard 16 (0.50) (0.29) (0.80) (1.73) (2.57) 1.64 (0.71) (0.06) 0.55 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 3464 (0.45) 19.05 64% (0.0000201)

    Gain (Thousandth of a Percent) 55.48

    Hard 15 (0.17) 0.19 (0.32) (0.73) (1.75) (2.23) (0.54) 0.09 0.66 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 3599 3.11 15.22 89% 0.0000082

    Gain (Thousandth of a Percent) 42.29

    Hard 14 (0.08) 0.44 0.17 (0.26) (0.77) (1.41) (4.21) 0.22 0.77 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 3291 6.64 27.80 50% (0.0000018)

    Gain (Thousandth of a Percent) 8.36

    Hard 13 0.01 0.46 0.40 0.21 (0.26) (0.43) (3.22) (3.48) 0.88 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 3390 10.13 31.29 35% 0.0017323

    Gain (Thousandth of a Percent) 1.09

    Hard 12 0.10 0.45 0.40 0.47 0.24 0.04 (2.06) (2.52) (2.86) 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 3059 13.58 27.64 31% (0.0000140)

    Gain (Thousandth of a Percent) 0.07

    Hard 11 1.61 0.76 0.77 0.79 1.11 0.84 1.53 0.74 (0.61) (1.89) (1.89) (1.89) (1.89) 1416 5.70 23.81 80% 0.0000010

    Gain (Thousandth of a Percent) 12.19

    Hard 10 (1.89) 0.59 0.65 0.80 1.14 0.76 1.72 0.86 (0.11) (1.13) (1.13) (1.13) (1.13) 1064 (2.77) 15.69 70% 0.0000050

    Gain (Thousandth of a Percent) 9.32

    > Surprised by your Cks result, I?ve redone
    > the whole table again with exactly the same
    > results as printed. All the entries are
    > fine. I couldn?t believe my eyes, given that
    > I double checked all ss and Cks. Despite the
    > fact that any given EoR?s table is fair
    > enough if the checksum stays within [+/-
    > 0.01], for the tables printed a benchmark of
    > 0.0000 accuracy was established. For
    > handling these types of data, computer
    > algorithms and/or powerful statistical
    > calculators are better than standard pocket
    > calculators, obviously.

    > Maybe you?ll be able to perform a couple of
    > calculations with Excel, but I?m afraid you
    > have quite a bit of work in front of you.
    > You?re alone on this.

    > Enjoy the tables.

    > Sincerely

    > Z

  5. #31
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Nothing to worry

    > I am interested in what the top 20 or so
    > plays are for single deck games when you
    > flat bet.

    See Griffin, p. 30.

    Don


  6. #32
    bjmagic
    Guest

    bjmagic: Re: Nothing to worry

    I am coming up with different numbers because Griffin assumed perfect play and count systems do not have perfect play as you know. It's the correlation coeffecient difference.

    > See Griffin, p. 30.

    > Don

  7. #33
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Illustrious hit/stand and intruders

    Hi-Opt I efficiencies with 20 cards remaining (61.54%)

     

    Illustrious

    Index Effic.(20 cards remaining) Generic effic.

    16 v T .622682 .641183

    15 v T .840654 .890125

    13 v 2 .73692 .759861

    12 v 4 .870162 .876804

    12 v 3 .775912 .816195

    13 v 3 .736808 .789924

    12 v 6 .774266 .787368

    12 v 2 .630797 .733504

    12 v 5 .845904 .868386

    16 v 9 .452299 .582384

    Intruders

    14 v T .204481 .49596

    13 v T .017921 .349318

    12 v T .000444532 .309432

    16 v 7 .184126 .41213

    13 v 4 .795721 .854973








    To arrive at a final conclusion you?ll need to duplicate Don?s IL18 work for the SD,
    which is frankly averse given the amount of work and time that are necessary to complete it.
    On the other hand, I have no doubts whatsoever, that you can throw away these five intruders without hesitation.

    At the end, what do we have? Illustrious hit/stand indexes, as usual.

    Hope this helps, somehow.

    Sincerely

    Z

  8. #34
    bjmagic
    Guest

    bjmagic: Re: Illustrious hit/stand and intruders

    > To arrive at a final conclusion you?ll need
    > to duplicate Don?s IL18 work for the SD,
    >
    > which is frankly averse given the amount of
    > work and time that are necessary to complete
    > it.

    I think I have a spreadsheet that somewhat duplicates Don's IL18 work. I have input the EOR numbers for all the hit/stand and double situations. I have used Wong's pg 294-5 probabilities.

    I have two variables in the spreadsheet: The tag values for the system you are using and the Total cards in the pack and the penetration.

    I am currently excluding the Average Bet because I am assuming flat bets, but that can easily be added later. Correct?

    Also I am only using the m's that you provided for a single deck and have not added the ability to approximate the m's for multiple decks per griffin 231-3.

    Am I missing something or am I on to something?

  9. #35
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: EoR's Table 11

    > In the above table the sings are incorrect
    > on entry 7 v 15 This is just a typo but I
    > thought I'd point it out.

    > The correct version should have 7v15
    > positive .461686

    You're right, it's just a typo.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  10. #36
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Added tips

    What?s the problem with interpolating by reciprocals?

    For 6 decks, 16 vs T;

    m(6) = (-0.445861 + 5*0.06)/6 = -0.024310

    Multiple-deck?s EoR?s tables are normalized and presented to one-deck values (a better basis for comparisons). If you want to know the effect of removing a single card out of 6 decks, don?t forget to divide by (311/51) and not by 6.

    Example: 16 vs T

    A = -0.499204 the 6 decks effect is:

    A = -0.499204/ (311/51) = -0.081863

    I am currently excluding the Average Bet because I am assuming flat bets, but that can easily be added later. Correct?

    Should be modified effortlessly, I?ll bet.

    Am I missing something or am I on to something?

    As long as you work and research, you?re on to something. Sometimes your efforts won?t have any type of compensation. You?d better accept this. Otherwise you?ll have problems to deal with the unavoidable frustrations that will pop up, for sure.

    Sincerely

    Z

  11. #37
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: EoR's Table 11(typo erased)

    DEALER 3


    HITTING 17 ? 12


     
    17 16 15 14

    A -1.90624 -1.45334 -1.01251 -0.857938
    2 -1.86041 -1.3045 -0.697699 -0.337793
    3 -2.3697 -2.06704 -1.45909 -0.81705
    4 -3.64045 -3.98711 -3.2493 -2.49714
    5 -1.06665 -4.46385 -3.71528 -2.95299
    6 -0.674933 -0.298143 -3.73405 -3.01373
    7 -0.229311 0.234025 0.461686 -3.01093
    8 0.310966 0.683309 0.877153 1.07256
    9 2.04728 2.26886 2.26782 2.2675
    T 2.34736 2.59695 2.56532 2.53688

    m -41.4418 -21.3389 -15.549 -9.73056

    ss 53.9375 76.6445 74.3943 66.6568

    Cks -0.000008 0.000011 0.00001 0.000009


     
    13 12

    A -0.680733 -0.468455
    2 -0.19499 -0.0560603
    3 -0.40738 -0.25145
    4 -1.74711 -1.25312
    5 -2.18977 -1.40809
    6 -2.29553 -1.55669
    7 -2.33884 -1.6467
    8 -2.44569 -1.8058
    9 2.2906 -1.40942
    T 2.50236 2.46394

    m -3.54105 2.56707

    ss 55.5300 38.5051

    Cks -0.000003 -0.0000253





  12. #38
    bjmagic
    Guest

    bjmagic: Found It

    I found the typo in the table. The EOR for 9 in the 13vT is listed as .88191. It should be .880191.

    John

  13. #39
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: Thanks a lot

    That's the reason I'm getting the correct Cks.
    I'm using my working papers with the correct expectation!

    We do have more refined tables now. :-)

    Thanks

    Z


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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.