TC0 higher win rate!?!

[RoadWarrior]

I am veryy confused! I thought the backkcounting approach would be far more powerful than playing at a disadvantage! Why is it on CVCX when you dont backcount and instead play at TC0 the win rate is higher! than if you just backcount and play hands only at +1 or higher!?

In summary, why is win rate more higher when you play all TC's such as -1 and 0 +1, +2, etc than if you just play positive counts!? Why would playing at a disadvantage result in higher win rate!?!? Wouldnt playing at just positive counts and at an advantage result in higher win rate? I am confused!

Please reply, thanks!

[GeorgeJung]

Post a screenshot of the two sims from CVCX and we can point you in the right direction.

[Stealth]

Why is it on CVCX when you dont backcount and instead play at TC0 the win rate is higher!

You have an error in your CVCX sims. Post screenshots.

[GeorgeJung]

Originally Posted by RoadWarrior
Why is it on CVCX when you dont backcount and instead play at TC0 the win rate is higher!
You have an error in your CVCX sims. Post screenshots.

I don´t think it is a mistake. If you use the standard settings as you open a sim, the winrate/hr will be higher when not backcounting, but at the same time the ROR will be astronomical. And when you toogle on backcounting, the winrate drops and so does the risk (according to what you input risklvl to be).

Buttom line, OP is comparing two different things --> he should look at SCORE. Or adjust the risk setting.

[Bodarc]

Hi RoadWarrior

You probably have the "Manually Adjust Minimum Bet" button selected. When you do this, it will keep the bets the same but your Standard Deviation and Risk of Ruin will drop drastically. If you do not select this button but select your risk of ruin by the Kelly Factor, you will see that it is your average bet and hourly win rate that increases drastically but your risk of ruin will remain about the same.

Play around with that and see what you get.

Hope this helps

[GeorgeJung]

exp1.jpgexp2.jpg

[Bodarc]

Look at your risk of ruin on each of them. Without back counting, your RoR is 40.5%. You are seriously over betting your bankroll. Look at the risk of ruin on the screen shot with back counting selected. It is 10.8%. That is a huge difference. You need to adjust both RoR's to an acceptable amount and you'll see your win rate on back counting will far exceed play all.

[Norm]

Bodarc is correct. You have the minimum chip size set to 50. It is not possible to have a 10% RoR with those settings and that high a min bet.

[GeorgeJung]

Lol i know, it was an example to my own post, see post #5.

The pictures are not from OP.

[Bigdaddy]

Regarding the screenshots, I don't understand how the SCOREs could be anywhere near that high (47 and 99) for the game parameters you have inputted (6-deck 5/6, H17, RSA, 1-12 spread). The SCOREs should be pitifully low.

[Norm]

Sounds a bit high, but SCOREs shouldn't be pitiful. He's using original Zen with full indices, with good penetration, and playing two hands. Each of these pumps up the SCOREs.

[Bigdaddy]

Sounds a bit high, but SCOREs shouldn't be pitiful. He's using original Zen with full indices, with good penetration, and playing two hands. Each of these pumps up the SCOREs.

Ok - I ran it with Complete Zen full indices and it's not as bad as I thought. I get SCOREs of 37 and 81 respectively. Not sure what the differences are - maybe some settings re: true count resolution, deck estimation, etc.

Anyway, I thought the SCOREs would be much lower. I underestimated the power of ZEN, RSA and playing 2 hands.