Playing basic strategy on 7 spots

[DSchles]

"Real casino but I'm not playing yet. For now the rules are 7 years 'old' and have not changed."

That's shocking. How have the counters not burned it out yet?

"I played at home 1641 games (about 126 400 hands)"

What's a "game"? From the above, seems like only 11 rounds of 7 hands each. Do you mean "shoes"?

"on seven spots and now I have $103 050."

You were somewhat lucky. Since e.v. is only $36,656, and I calculate the s.d. to be $73,907, your win was about +1 s.d., which happens about 16% of the time.

"Can this be considered a long run?"

No. Some people consider the long run to be when a one-s.d. loss still leaves you at breakeven. It would take four times as many hands for that to be the case in your example, as e.v. would quadruple and s.d. would double, making the two numbers about the same. But others consider the long run to be equal to a two-s.d result, which would require NINE times the amount of hands you played.

"What is the long run in this case if I only play BS, how much hands?"

See above.

"The biggest swing was $39 300 (68 games, 5236 hands) when I win, and when I lost $38 050 (60 games, 4620 hands). Can swing be bigger than $40 000? How bigger?"

Those are very surprisingly large.

"If I have BR $60 000 how is ROR?"

More than 44%! Bad idea. Would drop to 20% (still too high) if you played for half stakes ($50) or doubled the bank to $120,000.

"I will count the cards but only RC not TC, because I have advantage 70-80% during the game in long term."

And if you're flat betting, and using BS, what will you do with the RC?

Don

[refinery]

And if you're flat betting, and using BS, what will you do with the RC?

Perfect insurance running count is probably a great use of time.

[RS]

Yes, 44.68% is right.

By the way, when you wrote, "which shouldn't be an assumption," did you mean "which we should just accept as a fact" or "we really shouldn't just assume he's right"? :-)

Don

Actually, I was going to write we should accept as fact, but I figured that was too wordy and mumbly-like.

But I also meant it like, "If the figure he gave is exact....", meaning I doubt the figure you calculated is exactly $343,000.00 for exactly 1.00% ROR. If that number is rounded, then certainly my answer is not going to be correct. In this case it's not significantly off, if the 1.0% was (were?) changed to 0.9% and the $343k changed to $344k, then the $60k ROR becomes 43.97% (about 0.9% lower than the 44.68%). I didn't check it before, but when you start taking ~5'th roots of numbers (x^0.2), a small change can dramatically affect(?) the result. But now we're a bit off topic.

But I do appreciate the confirmation "my" math is correct.





My thoughts on the game itself --

Personally, I wouldn't want to be playing a game that requires ~3,500 units to play, with high variance and low EV (comparing them all to each other). There comes a point where it's simply not worth it to play, which is going to be different for everyone. But my feeling is you can get more value simply by scouting where you can find a stronger play.

[refinery]

I think the actual edge on this game is 0.11%, not the .29% that was given previously. That's what my sim says. Not sure how one would get to .29%. Even with full early surrender it's .17%.

[SpikeBJ]

How often do trip 7's pop up? Same with 6 card charlie, How often? How much does that really affect the edge"

[DSchles]

I think the actual edge on this game is 0.11%, not the .29% that was given previously. That's what my sim says. Not sure how one would get to .29%. Even with full early surrender it's .17%.

I did the math and got very close to the 0.29%. Confirmed with the WoO site. Did you consider 2 to 1 for the 6-card Charlie and not just that it was an automatic winner? That's worth +0.32 all by itself.

Don

[DSchles]

How often do trip 7's pop up? Same with 6 card charlie, How often? How much does that really affect the edge"

The sevens are worth only 0.02% Not worth talking about. But the 6-card is worth much, much more. WoO makes it +0.32%.

Don

[jimmybond007]

Why not just take the more standard approach and count playing one or two spots? Being off the top positive it will let you make money with a more polite spread (if the store will take it.) This seems like a better approach than just tossing down massive amounts money grinding out EV with the small edge playing BS.

[SpikeBJ]

WoO makes it +0.32%

Based on my actual play, I was under the impression that 6 card charlie was a rare event and wouldn't effect the edge a third of a percent. How often does it show up in real life (using math or sims)?

[DSchles]

Based on my actual play, I was under the impression that 6 card charlie was a rare event and wouldn't effect the edge a third of a percent. How often does it show up in real life (using math or sims)?

Well, apparently, it affects it one-sixth of one percent, but it pays double.

Don

[Gronbog]

Basic strategy would be somewhat altered for the 6 card charlie. The more cards you have, the more you would be inclined to hit. This is similar to certain bonuses in Spanish 21. I wonder if the 0.32% is accounting for this.

[refinery]

I did the math and got very close to the 0.29%. Confirmed with the WoO site. Did you consider 2 to 1 for the 6-card Charlie and not just that it was an automatic winner? That's worth +0.32 all by itself.

Don

This is so frustrating.

The setup:

setup.jpg

The rules:

rules.jpg

The bonus:

bonus.jpg

Playing:

playing.jpg

The results:

results.jpg

[Gronbog]

I doubt that the "Complete Basic Strategy" uses the more aggressive hitting that I mentioned in my previous post. I overcame my laziness and checked the WoO page. Since he does go into detail about the required strategy changes, I think we can assume that the 0.16 improvement in the house edge for the 6 card charlie requires the use of his strategy.

Actually, since the payout is 2:1, an even more aggressive hitting strategy would be called for which would increase the improvement even more.