CVCX Forced Shuffle vs Reenter Shoe Multiple Times

[Three]

Both explain what you are looking at. The number of rounds you sit out approximately double rounds played to get rounds observed which is what is used in the computation of win rate and c-SCORE. The 6 round lag also has this effect but to a much lesser degree because you are observing without playing far fewer rounds. If I am right the rounds aren't observed but rather factored in because you can't start a fresh shoe at the push of a button. It takes time. That time is represented by a penalty in rounds just like rounds observed but not played. The multiple to adjust for the lag for the Forced Shuffle sim that you posted is about .901 rather than the .481 for the reenter multiple times sim. The Forced Shuffle adjustment would vary depending on the criterion used to force the shuffle.

[MercySakesAlive]

Thanks, Three. Maybe Norm can tell us if you're correct.

[Phoebe]

With "Forced Shuffle" you play more hands by hour (100 instead of 50) with same advantage. Win/hour is doubled.
Note that SD is multiplied by sqr(2) which explains why SCORE is doubled too.
It's a coincidence.

PS: only a try to simply answer original post.

[Three]

With "Forced Shuffle" you play more hands by hour (100 instead of 50) with same advantage. Win/hour is doubled.
Note that SD is mulpiflied by sqr(2) which explains why SCORE is doubled too.
It's a coincidence.

PS: only a try to simply answer original post.

Thanks for restating what has been said in the thread in a short manner. I am sure some don't read my posts. But in the forced shuffle feature in the sim you only play 90 rounds per hour. It is assessing some unknown penalty in rounds to get the shuffle. No doubt for the added time it takes to change tables or get a courtesy shuffle. The conversion factor is almost exactly 90% for the number of shuffles per hour you would require if you got a shuffle every time the TC hit TC -1 between rounds. The conversion factor for wonging in place for not betting if the TC is -1 or less is about 48% of rounds observed are played.

[MercySakesAlive]

Great, thanks again for helping me with this. I was mulling everything Three wrote over in my head. The part that is a little confusing is that when I adjust the #of rounds in the ticker box it has no effect on SCORE, only on win rate. But according to your description of the software, the number of rounds played per hour does effect the SCORE. So that's a little confusing to me. But I get it as much as I need to probably. Thanks again. Three and all.

[Three]

You are welcome. It is nice when someone engages a discussion and wants to do something other than argue about nonsense. I have learned if I can't resist the bait being trolled to use Norm's other option to avoid seeing the bait to begin with. I don't like doing this but it works great when I feel the need to do so.

[Phoebe]

Sorry, my last post was clear but partially wrong.
What is true is that the win per hour is doubled because the number of hands is doubled.
SCORE in CVCX is actually a c-SCORE and compares the gain in the same conditions but not necessarily those of Don (RoR = 13,5% 100 hands / hour etc ...)
What interests us and that shows this c-SCORE is that this gain is doubled with same RoR
It's not a coincidence but a CVCX's feature.

Note that even Don in BJA3 abandoned the idea of preserving SCORE's original purity.

[DSchles]

Sorry, my last post was clear but partially wrong.
What is true is that the win per hour is doubled because the number of hands is doubled.
SCORE in CVCX is actually a c-SCORE and compares the gain in the same conditions but not necessarily those of Don (RoR = 13,5% 100 hands / hour etc ...)
What interests us and that shows this c-SCORE is that this gain is doubled with same RoR
It's not a coincidence but a CVCX's feature.

Note that even Don in BJA3 abandoned the idea of preserving SCORE's original purity.

Two things: 1) I was going to write to you last night that it wasn't a coincidence and then got sidetracked and forgot. But, no, it is not a coincidence. 2) It's not so much that I abandoned the original "purity" of SCORE as a concept -- I didn't -- as that I conceded that I couldn't stop the public from using the term incorrectly to mean any old garden variety win rate. And people still do that to this day. I appreciate when they use c-SCORE instead, and that was a term that Richard Reid coined to try to help clarify the confusion that was developing.

In the end, to me at least, SCORE remains a very useful concept in its original, "pure" form. And, I continue to compare the principle to the mileage ratings that appear on new-car stickers, which are provided by the EPA (the ratings, not the stickers!). No one says that when you personally drive the car, you will attain the mileage posted. But you have the confidence that an independent, impartial agency has made an effort to inform the public, in a fair manner, how the various mileages rank. SCORE does the same thing for blackajck games, but you may decide to "drive the car" in a different manner. No problem in that, so long as you no longer claim that you are quoting an original EPA, er, SCORE value.

Agreed?

Don

[Three]

Note that even Don in BJA3 abandoned the idea of preserving SCORE's original purity.

Don and a lot of other people appreciate those that attempt to do so. I do but still fail to put the "c-" before SCORE often enough when I am talking about c-SCORE. Having a dual meaning for a term is just confusing as hell. We have the same issue with RoR. It means the chances of busting out assuming you never resize. Almost everyone will resize, so RoR almost never means the chances of busting out period, but some want to make it mean that. This just confuses things and makes using the term RoR very confusing when one that wants it to only apply to people that won't resize or compute a RoR that accounts for resizing strategy gets into the conversation. When that happens the term losses its usefulness. Players resizing is a given. RoR should never be construed to mean the odds a player will bust out. It simply makes the errant assumption you will never resize to generate a stat based on that errant assumption. For the very few that either can't or won't resize RoR is their chances of busting out.

[Phoebe]

Don, I agree.
1) I was lucky to understand and correct my mistake first
2) It's exactly what I understood and meant.

[DSchles]

Don and a lot of other people appreciate those that attempt to do so. I do but still fail to put the "c-" before SCORE often enough when I am talking about c-SCORE. Having a dual meaning for a term is just confusing as hell. We have the same issue with RoR. It means the chances of busting out assuming you never resize. Almost everyone will resize, so RoR almost never means the chances of busting out period, but some want to make it mean that. This just confuses things and makes using the term RoR very confusing when one that wants it to only apply to people that won't resize or compute a RoR that accounts for resizing strategy gets into the conversation. When that happens the term losses its usefulness. Players resizing is a given. RoR should never be construed to mean the odds a player will bust out. It simply makes the errant assumption you will never resize to generate a stat based on that errant assumption. For the very few that either can't or won't resize RoR is their chances of busting out.

You completely misunderstand the elegance of the term and the metric. It is precisely because you keep the term ROR pure and don't mess with it the way you insist on doing that it becomes extremely useful (to everyone except you) as a starting point -- just like SCORE -- to measure the riskiness of the manner in which you decide to bet with respect to your initial bankroll. If I start with 13.5% ROR, Joe starts with 25%, and Fred starts with 5%, that has GREAT meaning -- the exact same meaning and usefulness as a situation where I buy a car with an EPA rating of 20 mpg, Joe buys one with 25, and Fred buys one with 30.

It doesn't matter in the least that, in the real world, we all decide to drive our cars in vastly different manners from the way they were driven to produce the ratings on the stickers. THAT IS A GIVEN. But to then conclude, because of that obvious fact, that the original ratings are "confusing" or "useless" is just plain foolish.

So far, in the years I've been doing this, you are the only person who thinks the term is confusing, so chances are the problem lies in the manner in which you try to understand, as opposed to the rest of the world's being wrong. You add NOTHING to the conversation by stating the painfully obvious: if you don't play exactly in the manner that is required for the original ROR statistic to be accurate, you will get a different result. DUH. Why would you waste our time stating that ad nauseam? You add nothing to the conversation other than to state: Your mileage may vary. Thanks for letting us know that. Now, may we move on?

Don

[Three]

If you resize this changes (lowers) ror.

Short answer (and only one that's needed): yes, that's correct.

Don

In my opinion Don's answer is wrong. Let me explain why.

If you will resize it means RoR isn't the chances you will bust out. RoR is still a stat that tells you the chances you will bust out if you never resize, but you know you will resize so it is no longer your chances of busting out. If you will resize it lowers the chances you will bust out, but doesn't change RoR since RoR, by definition, assumes you will never resize.

Perhaps its my mathematical background, but once you define something, any statement that is in violation of that definition in a line of reasoning proves the line of reasoning is false and therefore wrong. Therefore RoR does not change if you plan to resize. It can't change because by definition RoR is the chance of busting out assuming you won't resize. If resizing is involved RoR no longer means the chance that you will bust out because you are not following the assumption it is based on. But RoR hasn't changed because if you follow the assumption in the stat's definition, the stat is the same even though the assumption is known to be invalid. Therefore RoR rarely means the chances you will bust out because the assumption is almost certainly invalid. RoR only actually means the chance that you will bust out when the assumption will prove to be valid. Who knows what the future holds.

I don't want to beat a dead horse but clearer mathematical logic can't be found. I guess the issue I have is when people insist that RoR means the chances you will bust out when that is only the case if the assumption applies. If the assumption doesn't apply RoR is unchanged. By definition, RoR is still based on the assumption in the definition. But the chances that you will bust out has changed and is no longer equal to your RoR.

I have a very mathematic mind and logic that defies mathematical reasoning is rejected as disproven and therefore false. That is why I am absolutely positive that Don's quoted statement above is wrong.

[DSchles]

"I don't want to beat a dead horse."

That's probably the funniest line you've ever written on this forum!

"That is why I am absolutely positive that Don's quoted statement above is wrong."

What's certain is that you're positive. Sadly, as is often the case, you're also hopelessly misguided.

Don