Cvcx

[NotEnoughHeat]

Sorry to barrage this forum with questions, and Norm who will probably be answering this.

For some reason I can't get the CVCX to sim with dealer peeks on 10. Whenever I check the option, the post-sim parameters will list it as unchecked.

Is there something I'm missing or that could interfere with this option.

[Norm]

The answer is complex. It has to do with the fact that CVCX is a parallel simulator that sims many rule sets at once. It will sim what you tell it to. In any case, that parameter only matters in really weird circumstances that can only be simmed with CVData.

[NotEnoughHeat]

In any case, that parameter only matters in really weird circumstances that can only be simmed with CVData.

I was under the impression that if the dealer does not peek on their 10 then 10-up naturals win all players bets (splits and doubles). This seems like if would affect win rate to some degree, based on the playing strategy used. Perhaps I don't understand this rule. Could you explain?

P.S. What sparked all this was I noticed that my CVCX and CVData sims weren't matching up and that perhaps this parameter was the cause of the difference. However, just a few moments ago I realized that the results were very close once I adjusted the penetration and hands per hour.

I know peeking 10s may not be the 'default' option in most places, but I'm still curious what affect it has on the game, if any.

[Norm]

If the dealer does not peek, then some extra cards may be dealt which has no measurable effect in shoe games. It could affect a hand-held game with multiple players if it changes the number of rounds dealt. But, even how the other players play could have the same effect.

[NotEnoughHeat]

If the dealer does not peek, then some extra cards may be dealt which has no measurable effect in shoe games. It could affect a hand-held game with multiple players if it changes the number of rounds dealt. But, even how the other players play could have the same effect.

So in this case, are additional bets such as doubles and splits lost on a dealers blackjack?

Btw, thanks for the responses

[Norm]

Whether or not the dealer peeks has no effect on how much is won or lost in a round.

[Freightman]

I was under the impression that if the dealer does not peek on their 10 then 10-up naturals win all players bets (splits and doubles). This seems like if would affect win rate to some degree, based on the playing strategy used. Perhaps I don't understand this rule. Could you explain?

P.S. What sparked all this was I noticed that my CVCX and CVData sims weren't matching up and that perhaps this parameter was the cause of the difference. However, just a few moments ago I realized that the results were very close once I adjusted the penetration and hands per hour.

I know peeking 10s may not be the 'default' option in most places, but I'm still curious what affect it has on the game, if any.

You are describing true ENHC rules, where dealer naturals take everything. I play in a locale where there is generally no dealer hole card, and that dealer naturals take original bets only. I know of no US location where this us practiced, though I could easily be wrong.

That being said, if you are subject to rules where dealer natural takes everything, you would need to adjust your sims to not double 11v10, 10v10, split 8's v ace or face - as an example.

[Three]

I know of no US location where this us practiced, though I could easily be wrong.

Before peek devices it was common to have the hands played out before the dealer checked (post playing warps being exposed). They always took original bet only wherever I played.

[Dog Hand]

My funny "no peek" story...

One day I was playing at a casino that uses electronic peekers, but on my table the peeker wasn't working. The PC said that the dealer would not check for BJ, but if she did have a BJ, each player without a BJ of his own would lose only a single bet. Thus, effectively, the game was a "normal" game, rather than a ENHC game.

On one round I received 8-8 vs. X. I split, and the first 8 received a 6, so I hit again and busted. The dealer did not scoop the cards and take my bet, though: instead, she slid the busted hand into a single stack, and placed my bet atop it. The second 8 likewise bit the dust, so in the end I had two stacks of cards, each with a losing wager atop it. The dealer finished the other players' hands, and as she made to flip her hole card, I (much to the confusion of the other players) began to chant, "Ace! Ace! Ace!"

Dog Hand

P.S. She didn't have it :-(

[NotEnoughHeat]

Before peek devices it was common to have the hands played out before the dealer checked (post playing warps being exposed).

Could you explain what you mean by 'post playing warps being exposed'. I feel like there's a reference to some history that's lost on me.

[NotEnoughHeat]

I (much to the confusion of the other players) began to chant, "Ace! Ace! Ace!"

Dog Hand

P.S. She didn't have it :-(

Ha, I have fond memories of hoping for the dealers blackjack (whether to win my insurance bet or to keep my extra bets) and receiving them. It's fun rooting 'for the dealer' every once in awhile. I'm sure it might irk some ploppies as well.

[Three]

When the dealer checked for blackjack by lifting the one edge of the card to look at the card's value which warped faces and aces concave and other cards convex. After enough play you had a pretty good idea of whether a card was a face or ace by its warp as it laid face down on the felt. You might even be able to read the warp as it was in the shoe about to be dealt. The first countermeasure was simply not to check until after all hands were played. This is what I was referring to as post playing warps being exposed. Later devices were made to check without warping the cards. This is what we see today. The first devices were electronic cards then optical devices.