Side bet simulation with CVData

**Shark** · 08-02-2013, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Tthree

This doesn't seem possible. If it is real it won't last long. Camp out and bet like you have a much bigger BR. You probably have a nice advantage off the top unless the game really sucks otherwise.

It is possible and it has been offered for at least two years and a half. The game really sucks otherwise (-0.55% off the top)but I don't know why you think that in an average game he would have advantage off the top. Off the top colored BJ come about 1in 42 hands.It is beatable with a specialized count.

**MidniteToker** · 08-02-2013, 08:44 AM

No need for a specialized count. You'll get more out of it, true, but you can beat it with the usual counts, you just need to figure out the strike point for them.

**Shark** · 08-02-2013, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by MidniteToker

No need for a specialized count. You'll get more out of it, true, but you can beat it with the usual counts, you just need to figure out the strike point for them.

You can beat it with regular counts but you get the lion's share by using a specialized count. In his game ,he will make much more by ignoring the BJ and counting for the side bet rather than betting correctly for BJ and adding a side bet when a conventional count indicates to do so. The BJ itself sucks at that store.

**Math Demon** · 08-02-2013, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Shark

You can beat it with regular counts but you get the lion's share by using a specialized count. In his game ,he will make much more by ignoring the BJ and counting for the side bet rather than betting correctly for BJ and adding a side bet when a conventional count indicates to do so. The BJ itself sucks at that store.

What "specialized count" would you suggest? Like the "Ten Count"?

Or are you suggesting that skuner has to come up with his own count? Maybe something like a modified "Ten Count"?

**Nyne** · 08-02-2013, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Math Demon

What "specialized count" would you suggest? Like the "Ten Count"?

Or are you suggesting that skuner has to come up with his own count? Maybe something like a modified "Ten Count"?

For any of these side bets, you can start by using CVData to find the effect of removal for each card, then use that to figure out what tags to assign to each card. Once you figure out what tags you want to try, you can define that count in CVData and determine the edge and variance at each count. You can then use that information to determine how much to bet. Plug all of that back into CVData and see how much the game is worth overall. I'm not sure there's any value in posting specific specialized counts and how much particular side bets are worth on a public forum.

**Shark** · 08-02-2013, 04:10 PM

It was suggested in a pm to op. Unfortunately, he chose to flash it on a public forum.

**Math Demon** · 08-02-2013, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Shark

It was suggested in a pm to op. Unfortunately, he chose to flash it on a public forum.

Newbies! ===>

You and everyone else should warn newbies that PM (Private Messages) should remain that. Private!

Anyway, I learned (or learnt) something new. Thanks Shark.

**Math Demon** · 08-02-2013, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Nyne

For any of these side bets, you can start by using CVData to find the effect of removal for each card, then use that to figure out what tags to assign to each card. Once you figure out what tags you want to try, you can define that count in CVData and determine the edge and variance at each count. You can then use that information to determine how much to bet. Plug all of that back into CVData and see how much the game is worth overall. I'm not sure there's any value in posting specific specialized counts and how much particular side bets are worth on a public forum.

Thanks for the info, Nyne.

Is there a CVData Online like there is CVCX Online?

**Nyne** · 08-02-2013, 07:39 PM

No but it's well worth the purchase price if you ever have opportunities available that are different from standard counting games.

**skuner** · 08-03-2013, 02:29 AM

Since I found the same "count" in a pubblic website for a similar "side bet" I did'n believe it was a secret...but now I delete it...sorry

**Nyne** · 08-03-2013, 07:15 AM

Thank you. Just because it's been exposed publicly once doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected when possible. Also just because a count works for one side bet doesn't always mean it will work for another even if they seem similar. More importantly, even if it does work for both, not all readers will make that leap. It is in your best interest not to expose the methods available to beat your own good games. Best case is nothing happens. Worst case is either the casino realizes the vulnerability and fixes it, or other APs realize the vulnerability and kill the game. There is no upside.

**Chip Hoarder** · 08-30-2013, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by MidniteToker

I don't think so. I expect that the hand still pushes on dealer BJ or 21. It's the sidebet that pays, the hand doesn't automatically win.

Following this logic, should "Hands Win" (under Conditions) be set to 0 rather than 1? Since you don't need to win the hand to get the bonus (i.e. win the sidebet)...

**MidniteToker** · 08-31-2013, 05:30 AM

It would if the box was checked. The box isn't checked, so the setting doesn't matter. If it was checked and set to 0, I think it would mean the bonus only applies if the hand loses. Since it applies whether or not it wins/loses, the box isn't checked.