Why can't you adjust playing two hands to one in CVCX for unbalanced strategies?

[seriousplayer]

I've notice CVCX was about to adjust playing two hands to one hand at certain counts with playing strategies like Hi-lo but it is unable to adjust playing two hands to one hand with unbalanced playing strategies. For example, when opening the Hi-lo strategy in CVCX adjusting the right arrow in "Play two hands" to 1 it will play one hand in negative counts and two hands at positive count. But this option is not available for unbalanced strategies. I find this very inconvenient because I will need to do a separate simulation in CVData to find out the SCORE, ROR, and N0 for playing one hand in negative counts and two hands with positive counts.

Would there be an update to fix that problem?

[muckz]

I've notice CVCX was about to adjust playing two hands to one hand at certain counts with playing strategies like Hi-lo but it is unable to adjust playing two hands to one hand with unbalanced playing strategies. For example, when opening the Hi-lo strategy in CVCX adjusting the right arrow in "Play two hands" to 1 it will play one hand in negative counts and two hands at positive count. But this option is not available for unbalanced strategies. I find this very inconvenient because I will need to do a separate simulation in CVData to find out the SCORE, ROR, and N0 for playing one hand in negative counts and two hands with positive counts.

Would there be an update to fix that problem?

I'm sure the fix is well within Norm/Qfit capabilities, coding takes time. Then you have to figure if the update is worth a patch or a full release.

I don't like this post at all. It seems odd that you would complain about an inconvenience. Blackjack is a game where your winnings aren't realized until playing some 50k+ rounds. You've got plenty of time to use up one day to run a sim, or even 20 minutes if your cpu is modern.
There are a few things I wish cv could do. These things are obscure and it is unlikely that more than a few people would even want to do these things. I'm not going to complain about the inconvenience though. Do you really think you would have any idea what kind of EV you're generating without it? You've gone broke before, how much quicker would you have busted without the software?

If you really can't stand the inconvenience or wait, it would be very easy to just extrapolate from balanced systems.
KO = hi-lo
ubz2 = zen
brh-1 = rpc

Even the indices and betting are almost entirely interchangeable when both are in true count mode.

[seriousplayer]

I'm sure the fix is well within Norm/Qfit capabilities, coding takes time. Then you have to figure if the update is worth a patch or a full release.

I don't like this post at all. It seems odd that you would complain about an inconvenience. Blackjack is a game where your winnings aren't realized until playing some 50k+ rounds. You've got plenty of time to use up one day to run a sim, or even 20 minutes if your cpu is modern.
There are a few things I wish cv could do. These things are obscure and it is unlikely that more than a few people would even want to do these things. I'm not going to complain about the inconvenience though. Do you really think you would have any idea what kind of EV you're generating without it? You've gone broke before, how much quicker would you have busted without the software?

If you really can't stand the inconvenience or wait, it would be very easy to just extrapolate from balanced systems.
KO = hi-lo
ubz2 = zen
brh-1 = rpc

Even the indices and betting are almost entirely interchangeable when both are in true count mode.

Doing a simulation of 7 billion rounds does not take 20 minutes. I have a Core i5 processor. I don't think a Core i7 could run 7 billion hands in 20 minutes. What I am planning to do is compare the SCORE, ROR, and N0 with playing two hands for all count using an unbalanced strategies and compare it with playing one hand in negative counts and two hands in positive counts. I will need to input the optimal bets from CVCX into CVData for each -/+ running count. Then modified the the red area that is indicated in CVCX to one hand and input 2 hands at positive counts. I have to do this for each penetration. It is like running each individual simulation for different penetrations. It is not optimal to just use one betting strategy for all penetrations.

"Even the indices and betting are almost entirely interchangeable when both are in true count mode."

It is not accurate to say that the indices are almost entirely interchangeable when use in true count mode, because it is not. Let me take the illustrious 18 for example from the Hi-lo count and compare it with Silver Fox System both are level one count systems. You double 10 vs 10 on the TC >=4, Double 10 vs 11 on TC >= 4 for Hi-lo but for Silver Fox System you double 10 vs 10 on the TC >=7, Double 10 vs 11 on TC >= 7. Different tags different indices values.

If I were to use Hi-lo illustrious 18 indices on Silver Fox than I will be losing accuracy and EV.

"You've gone broke before, how much quicker would you have busted without the software?"
Where did you heard that I've gone broke???? I've been through a losing streak that don't mean that I am broke.

[muckz]

Doing a simulation of 7 billion rounds does not take 20 minutes. I have a Core i5 processor. I don't think a Core i7 could run 7 billion hands in 20 minutes. What I am planning to do is compare the SCORE, ROR, and N0 with playing two hands for all count using an unbalanced strategies and compare it with playing one hand in negative counts and two hands in positive counts. I will need to input the optimal bets from CVCX into CVData for each -/+ running count. Then modified the the red area that is indicated in CVCX to one hand and input 2 hands at positive counts. I have to do this for each penetration. It is like running each individual simulation for different penetrations. It is not optimal to just use one betting strategy for all penetrations.

Why would you need to do 7 billion, cvcx is a tool used for comparison and estimation. 2 billion was just fine for BJA3, why do you need 7? As long as the std. error is the same between your comparisons what does it matter? CVdata has a call cvcx feature as well. There is no need to get so specific on the simulations. You are not going to achieve the optimal results given.

It is not accurate to say that the indices are almost entirely interchangeable when use in true count mode, because it is not. Let me take the illustrious 18 for example from the Hi-lo count and compare it with Silver Fox System both are level one count systems. You double 10 vs 10 on the TC >=4, Double 10 vs 11 on TC >= 4 for Hi-lo but for Silver Fox System you double 10 vs 10 on the TC >=7, Double 10 vs 11 on TC >= 7. Different tags different indices values.

This doesn't make any sense, you completely missed the context of the sentence. Both of these are balanced counts, one which is far far inferior to both hi-lo and KO. I specifically compared balanced to their unbalanced counterparts, which I am correct about. Additionally, the RA indices for 10 v 10 are very similar for both silver fox and hi-lo. RA indices are something you should probably be using if you are worried about your bankroll.

Where did you heard that I've gone broke???? I've been through a losing streak that don't mean that I am broke.

You said so yourself. Call it a hiatus if you want, either way you pushed it too hard and had to stop.

[seriousplayer]

"This doesn't make any sense, you completely missed the context of the sentence. Both of these are balanced counts, one which is far far inferior to both hi-lo and KO. I specifically compared balanced to their unbalanced counterparts, which I am correct about. Additionally, the RA indices for 10 v 10 are very similar for both silver fox and hi-lo. RA indices are something you should probably be using if you are worried about your bankroll."

The PE = .53 for silver fox system, PE = .55 for KO Count, PE = .51 for Hi-lo. So you are saying silver fox is inferior to both hi-lo and KO in terms of PE??? If you are saying silver fox is using RA indices of the illustrious 18 did you evaluate the play 9 v 2 for both Hi-lo and silver fox?

In Blackjack Attack Don has the EV max and RA index for 9 vs 2 at TC => 1 but in silver fox system the deviation to double on 9 vs 3 is TC => 3.

I am not confident using balance count indices for unbalanced count even in true count mode. If need be I will generate RA indices for unbalanced count in true mode using CVDATA.

"There is no need to get so specific on the simulations."

To make an accurate comparison I will need to be specific because I don't want wrong results.

"Why would you need to do 7 billion, cvcx is a tool used for comparison and estimation."

Answer: Because I choose to run 7 billions hands. It is my preference. I save all simulations I ran. Running 2 billion hands does not take 20 minutes.

"You said so yourself."

When I saying going broke sometimes I mean losing my trip bankroll and not my entire bankroll.

[muckz]

The PE = .53 for silver fox system, PE = .55 for KO Count, PE = .51 for Hi-lo. So you are saying silver fox is inferior to both hi-lo and KO in terms of PE??? If you are saying silver fox is using RA indices of the illustrious 18 did you evaluate the play 9 v 2 for both Hi-lo and silver fox?

Systems should not be compared by just one factor, BC and IC are extremely important. Counting the 9 as a -1 is severely detrimental to your insurance decision which is the most important index. I didn't evaluate the play, what does it matter. I doubt you even read what I wrote. Your original question was about unbalanced counts, why do you keep bringing up this silver fox nonsense.

[seriousplayer]

Your original question was about unbalanced counts, why do you keep bringing up this silver fox nonsense.

Because I want to say that it is not that accurate to just blindly interchange indices from one system to another. Don't matter if it is from balance to unbalance or balance to balance system.

"Systems should not be compared by just one factor, BC and IC are extremely important."

We are talking about playing deviation so the only factor to look at is PE and not BC and IC.

[muckz]

Because I want to say that it is not that accurate to just blindly interchange indices from one system to another. Don't matter if it is from balance to unbalance or balance to balance system.

"Systems should not be compared by just one factor, BC and IC are extremely important."

We are talking about playing deviation so the only factor to look at is PE and not BC and IC.

I did not say to blindly change indices from one system to another, I specifically quoted 3 balanced strategies that very closely resemble 3 unbalanced strategies. Silver fox and hi-lo are completely different (sort of) systems which you decided to compare together. IC is a playing decision. Take insurance or not, its done after you make a bet and are given a hand. IT IS the most important index play. Ignoring this is absurd.

[seriousplayer]

I did not say to blindly change indices from one system to another, I specifically quoted 3 balanced strategies that very closely resemble 3 unbalanced strategies. Silver fox and hi-lo are completely different (sort of) systems which you decided to compare together. IC is a playing decision. Take insurance or not, its done after you make a bet and are given a hand. IT IS the most important index play. Ignoring this is absurd.

Hi-lo and KO are also complete different systems which you decide to compare together. Tell me what is the same about KO and Hi-lo? Closely resembling count system don't mean they use the same indices for playing deviations. It is blindly exchanging indices. Indices for KO or REKO is already generated in true count mode in Modern Blackjack. It state in there that TKO indices are not typical Hi-lo indices. The indices in KO will have to 4 time lower than usual if true counted.

Why would you want to interchange hi-lo indices to KO when True counted indices is already generated for KO in true count mode in Modern Blackjack and they are not the same indices when you compare them? Some seems close to the Hi-lo indices but some are different.

[Norm]

I've notice CVCX was about to adjust playing two hands to one hand at certain counts with playing strategies like Hi-lo but it is unable to adjust playing two hands to one hand with unbalanced playing strategies.

It is not possible to accurately calculate the effect of changing the number of hands in a post-sim calculator. It must be done during simulation because this changes the TC frequencies. I developed a very messy algorithm and a ton of tables that provides a quite accurate estimate. However, it doesn't work for unbalanced strategies. For that, you can use CVData, or the CVCX pre-sim wonging feature. They both provide accurate pre-sim calculations of TC frequencies.

I don't think a Core i7 could run 7 billion hands in 20 minutes.

Actually, about 3.5 minutes on my i7. Make sure you are using the Threads option to make use of the i5's multiple cores.

[seriousplayer]

Actually, about 3.5 minutes on my i7. Make sure you are using the Threads option to make use of the i5's multiple cores.

How many threads should I utilized to make the simulation run faster for i5 processor?

[muckz]

Hi-lo and KO are also complete different systems which you decide to compare together. Tell me what is the same about KO and Hi-lo? Closely resembling count system don't mean they use the same indices for playing deviations. It is blindly exchanging indices. Indices for KO or REKO is already generated in true count mode in Modern Blackjack. It state in there that TKO indices are not typical Hi-lo indices. The indices in KO will have to 4 time lower than usual if true counted.

Why would you want to interchange hi-lo indices to KO when True counted indices is already generated for KO in true count mode in Modern Blackjack and they are not the same indices when you compare them? Some seems close to the Hi-lo indices but some are different.

First of all, the indices in norms book are RISK AVERSE. The hi-lo indices you are comparing to commonly found around the internet, bja3(which are from wong's book), and wong's professional bj are EV MAXIMIZING indices. They are completely different if you want to compare them that way.

Yes, the indices are generated in norms book. Again, they are RISK AVERSE and if you read carefully, the only time you would subtract 4 from each index would be IF you are using the brett harris simplification that starts with an IRC of -pivot. For the traditional method of ub'd tc calculation those indices are correct. The reason why some indices are close is because RISK AVERSION has little use on some indices, the choice is night and day.

I did go ahead and run a nice simulation for you. I used the EV MAXIMIZING indices in bja3/wong. To your surprise, TKO worked just fine, in fact, it outperformed Hi-Lo.

The rules I used were s17, surrender, no rsa, no doa. 5/6 penetration 1-12 spread using 2 hands at all counts.

You can find the results attached.

for serious player hilo vs tko same indices.zip

[Norm]

How many threads should I utilized to make the simulation run faster for i5 processor?

What model i5?