See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 22

Thread: Heads up sim *READ*

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Heads up sim *READ*

    So by looking at the archived sims on CVCX. I'm still puzzled why 2 hands at negative counts makes the N0 4 thousands rounds less than if I just play 1 hand in negative counts and then spread to 2 hands at TC +1? I understand the concept of 'card eating' but that would only be beneficial if you use a lower bet size than your 1 hand bet, otherwise it makes no sense, but on CVCX for example I put in the following and get a N0 of 19,723 rounds and a win rate of $124.47 playing at 180 rounds an hour with Halves Full Indices H17, DAS, LS and 1.5 cut on 6 decks.

    TC -1 = 2x10
    TC 0 = 2x10
    TC 1 = 2x25
    TC 2 = 2x50
    TC 3 = 2x100
    TC 4 = 2x150
    TC 5 = 2x200

    But if instead I use the following values and spread to 2 hands at +1 instead of at -1 and 0, I get a much smaller win rate at $99.41 and a N0 at 23,021. Again this is using 180 rounds an hour.

    TC -1 = 1x10
    TC 0 = 1x10
    TC 1 = 2x25
    TC 2 = 2x50
    TC 3 = 2x100
    TC 4 = 2x150
    TC 5 = 2x200

    Again, I understand the concept of card eating at negative counts to get to positive counts quicker, but it was always my understanding that playing 2 hands in negative counts would only be beneficial if your unit size was smaller on both of your hands compared to your one hand bet. In both situations Im using the same bet size but just adding a hand or taking away a hand. How is the 2 hand approach with 2x10 in negative counts result in $25 an hour more and 4k less rounds in N0 compared to the 1x10 approach?

    Can someone clarify or sim this for me please and tell me if my results are correct? I want to start playing more heads up, but need some clarification. I dont care about heat. Please dont mention this and that and how it might not be beneficial long term cause of heat etc. I just want the mathematically correct answer and highest EV and lowest N0.
    Last edited by KingZen; 07-15-2018 at 01:07 PM.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Assume heads up for sake of argument. Do you really think total hands per hour, or total rounds per hour are going to be the same for the 2 scenarios. Make the appropriate adjustments and redo.

    Whatever your name is this month, your problem among others, is your likely far too robotic approach. Sim to your hearts content, but in actual battle, throw in some nuggets of creativity, those creative sands which really can't be simmed.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Assume heads up for sake of argument. Do you really think total hands per hour, or total rounds per hour are going to be the same for the 2 scenarios. Make the appropriate adjustments and redo.

    Whatever your name is this month, your problem among others, is your likely far too robotic approach. Sim to your hearts content, but in actual battle, throw in some nuggets of creativity, those creative sands which really can't be simmed.
    Why wouldn't they be the same? Both scenarios are for heads up play. Playing 2 hands or 1 hand in negative counts wouldn't change the speed by that much. Even if it did, that's not the answer I'm trying to get answered. I still want to know why 2 hands at negative counts all things remaining constant such as rounds per hour and bet sizes, why it outperforms 1 hand at negative counts?

    I understand the heat concerns, but I just want the 'right' answer for now and ignore any heat aspects as I mentioned in the OP. I just want the correct mathematical answer as to the most aggressive form of play when playing heads up. I've always just played 1 hand at negative counts and spread to 2 hands at +1 and higher. I just want to know why 2 hands at negative counts is outperforming 1 hand at negative counts. It can't be because of card eating if the bets are the same, that makes no sense, you would have far more money wagered per card used resulting in less EV per hour with the 2 hand negative count approach. This is confusing the hell out of me and I want to know if my sim is right and if someone can clarify all of this.
    Last edited by KingZen; 07-15-2018 at 02:12 PM.

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by KingZen View Post
    I understand the concerns, but I just want the 'right' answer for now and ignore any heat aspects for now as I mentioned in the OP. I just want the correct mathematical answer as to the most aggressive form of play when playing heads up. I've always just played 1 hand at negative counts and spread to 2 hands at +1 and higher. I just want to know why 2 hands at negative counts is outperforming 1 hand at negative counts. It can't be because of card eating if the bets are the same, that makes no sense, you would have far more money wagered per card used resulting in less EV per hour. This is confusing the hell out of me and I want to know if my sim is right.
    For one who has professed to be a genius under a former handle, you need to improve your comprehension skills. Reread and try to understand my original answer. Equate it to SCORE.

    No, your sim is not correct. I don't feel like simming it, because, among other things, it's poker night with the boys, and besides, you really pissed me off before.

    The proper answer depends on table population. I don't feel like articulating.

  5. #5


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    It could be nice if Norm could step in. I remember having the same questionning a while ago using the software.
    Freightman is of no help and obviously won't give you any sort of intelligent answer.
    G Man

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by G Man View Post
    It could be nice if Norm could step in. I remember having the same questionning a while ago using the software.
    Freightman is of no help and obviously won't give you any sort of intelligent answer.
    He's been given the clues. If he can't figure it out, thats his problem. a better answer is, of course, available. Kind of depends on who's asking.

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The thing is, it's a question I've seen a few times (not necessary on boards) and it deserves an explanation other than "always playing two hands is better".
    The answer to this problem isn't intuitive.
    G Man

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by G Man View Post
    The thing is, it's a question I've seen a few times (not necessary on boards) and it deserves an explanation other than "always playing two hands is better".
    The answer to this problem isn't intuitive.
    Based on Freightman's posting history, it is most likely that he has no clue what the answer is. Yet he is still toying with KingZen. Just not a decent human being.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by KingZen View Post
    So by looking at the archived sims on CVCX. I'm still puzzled why 2 hands at negative counts makes the N0 4 thousands rounds less than if I just play 1 hand in negative counts and then spread to 2 hands at TC +1? I understand the concept of 'card eating' but that would only be beneficial if you use a lower bet size than your 1 hand bet, otherwise it makes no sense, but on CVCX for example I put in the following and get a N0 of 19,723 rounds and a win rate of $124.47 playing at 180 rounds an hour with Halves Full Indices H17, DAS, LS and 1.5 cut on 6 decks.

    TC -1 = 2x10
    TC 0 = 2x10
    TC 1 = 2x25
    TC 2 = 2x50
    TC 3 = 2x100
    TC 4 = 2x150
    TC 5 = 2x200

    But if instead I use the following values and spread to 2 hands at +1 instead of at -1 and 0, I get a much smaller win rate at $99.41 and a N0 at 23,021. Again this is using 180 rounds an hour.

    TC -1 = 1x10
    TC 0 = 1x10
    TC 1 = 2x25
    TC 2 = 2x50
    TC 3 = 2x100
    TC 4 = 2x150
    TC 5 = 2x200

    Again, I understand the concept of card eating at negative counts to get to positive counts quicker, but it was always my understanding that playing 2 hands in negative counts would only be beneficial if your unit size was smaller on both of your hands compared to your one hand bet. In both situations Im using the same bet size but just adding a hand or taking away a hand. How is the 2 hand approach with 2x10 in negative counts result in $25 an hour more and 4k less rounds in N0 compared to the 1x10 approach?

    Can someone clarify or sim this for me please and tell me if my results are correct? I want to start playing more heads up, but need some clarification. I dont care about heat. Please dont mention this and that and how it might not be beneficial long term cause of heat etc. I just want the mathematically correct answer and highest EV and lowest N0.
    I don't have such a software. But based on your simulation results, it could be just another bug. Or CVCX interprets you spread 20 to 1 on #1 and 40 to 1 on #2. c-Score $62.23 on #1 and c-Score $99.41 on #2 seems reasonable numbers.

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    I don't have such a software. But based on your simulation results, it could be just another bug. Or CVCX interprets you spread 20 to 1 on #1 and 40 to 1 on #2. c-Score $62.23 on #1 and c-Score $99.41 on #2 seems reasonable numbers.
    If it was interpreting 20-1 on first data set, then the nunbers wouldnt be higher than the 2nd set. If anything its interpreting 40-1 on the fiest data set

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Definitely better to just play one in negative or extremely negative counts, this will increase your hourly rate. It is pretty trivial to demonstrate :

    1 deck left to play, count quite negative,

    two hands (7.5 cards per round) = 7 rounds, 14 min unit bets
    1 hand (5 cards per round) = 10 rounds, 10 min unit bets

    obviously our goal is to make fewer negative expectation bets

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Meistro123 View Post
    Definitely better to just play one in negative or extremely negative counts, this will increase your hourly rate. It is pretty trivial to demonstrate :

    1 deck left to play, count quite negative,

    two hands (7.5 cards per round) = 7 rounds, 14 min unit bets
    1 hand (5 cards per round) = 10 rounds, 10 min unit bets

    obviously our goal is to make fewer negative expectation bets
    Then why is CVCX saying 2x10 in negatjve counts outperforms 1x10? What is wrong with this software? I remember i had to tell Norm CVCX was bugged when you selected play two hands at +1 when backcounting because the win rate was higher if you left it on play two hands at 0 when backcounting, which was an obvious bug. I guess thid is just another bug regarding the 'play two hands' feature

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    maybe u didnt sim enough rounds

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mr. Ed: Heads Up Play
    By Mr. Ed in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2003, 06:18 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.