Using CVCX to determine advantages

[MercySakesAlive]

advantages chart.jpg

Using CVCX, I used the technique as seen in the image above to figure out what Win/Loss advantage or disadvantage I have at each count value for each deck depth. I run 10,000 milliion rounds of the sim.

CVCX gives me a value for that particular count number at that particular depth.

In my mind this would be a very accurate way to determine, what advantage or disadvantage I have at each count at each depth.

Is this a sound method? Is there anything I may have missed that could screw up my results?

[Norm]

Well, that certainly wasn't the purpose of the feature. But, I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work.

[MercySakesAlive]

cool thanks

[DSchles]

I don't understand the chart. Maybe you could explain why only the 4-deck level has meaningful values for counts of +2 to +11, while the 3-deck level is much less, and everything else is zero. Makes no sense to me.

Don

[Norm]

This particular table is used to simulate Color of Blackjack type strategies where betting is by running count but varies by penetration. He has cleverly used the table to trick CVCX into providing the CVData feature of calculating RC frequencies by area of the shoe.

[MercySakesAlive]

bet schedule.jpg

I play using REKO with some Color of Blackjack style adjusted-by-depth betting. I wanted to know exactly what my advantage or disadvantage was at every count at every deck depth so I could accurately set my "warm line" (the line where I have a 0.3-0.5% advantage). I used CVCX's depth betting feature as seen in the original post to do this. IRC set at 0.

[MidniteToker]

Yep, I've done work that is much the same, for the same purpose. It's a neat way to use the feature.

[Marvin]

bet schedule.jpg

I play using REKO with some Color of Blackjack style adjusted-by-depth betting. I wanted to know exactly what my advantage or disadvantage was at every count at every deck depth so I could accurately set my "warm line" (the line where I have a 0.3-0.5% advantage). I used CVCX's depth betting feature as seen in the original post to do this. IRC set at 0.

Interesting/neat.
The numbers for the first deck dealt at the 24 and 26 RC look counter-intuitive, as they don't follow the general trend of higher advantages the deeper in the shoe once at/above the pivot. This could be due to a small sample size of results with the RC getting that high in the first deck. The TC with RC26 and 1 deck dealt out is ~+4.4, with 5 decks dealt out and RC of 26 the TC would be ~+6 and should result in a higher edge.

[MidniteToker]

This could be due to a small sample size of results with the RC getting that high in the first deck.

I think so as well.

[bigplayer]

Is RC +22 the PIVOT for this version of REKO?

[Marvin]

Is RC +22 the PIVOT for this version of REKO?

+24 = TC+4. The unbalance is +4/deck, and the IRC was set to 0.

If by pivot you mean when you first have the edge, then it would depend on the rules, but would probably be lower than 22 since that's TC+2 or higher unless you're in the final deck.

To the OP, you should check out the Kindle version of Norm's book. Chapter +11 offers much interesting info on unbalanced counts, including depth based index numbers for KO/REKO.

[bigplayer]

I might be confusing the Pivot and Key Count (I use a balanced count so ...) It just looked interesting that at +22 the edge for almost all levels of penetration was the same.

[muckz]

Pivot is kind of confusing, there are different pivots for half rank ubz2/red7 and full rank ko. Pivot is the point in an unbalanced count where no matter what penetration the TC is the same. Looking at a spreadsheet of the TC of each RC and penetration you can see exactly why it's a "Pivot". In my opinion Key count has little value as a term. It is very easy to memorize the RC per deck that you have an initial advantage.

The pivot (tc4 for reko) should be at 24.