Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Question Regarding the Number of Players Setting in CVCX

  1. #1
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Question Regarding the Number of Players Setting in CVCX

    I run a CVCX sim w/ 3 players set. I assume that my play is one of those 3 players… thereby implying that in this simulation there is me, and then 2 other players.

    In using the Wizard of Odds table at https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/136/ it says with 3 players that on average (I know there’s a lot of variables that can change this) the table plays approximately 105 rounds per hour (not sure if this is ASM, manual, or a mixture of both… but I will assume it’s an average of both… but it doesn’t matter in this case). Nonetheless, with “play two hands” option originally turned OFF, I set the rounds per hour to 105 and get my SCORE for single hand play with two other players at the table. But clicking ON the “play two hands” option, I must now adjust the rounds per hour because now instead of 3 hands being played per round, there’s four (two are mine). Going to the same Wizard of Odds table, it shows with 4 players the table averages 84 rounds per hour. BUT two of the players are me, and I would assume that me playing two hands will be faster than the equivalent of 2 different players. Should I adjust the 84 rph up to account for my synergies? If so, approximately what percentage?

    Just wondering if anyone’s done the empirical analysis of this.
    Last edited by SteinMeister; 07-30-2018 at 02:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    There really is no set percentage and it varies rather enormously by dealer and other players. In Puerto Rico, I had a dealer whose hands were a blur. Cards just magically appeared in front of me. In St. Maarten, the shuffle was so long I needed to shave by the end.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by SteinMeister View Post
    I run a CVCX sim w/ 3 players set. I assume that my play is one of those 3 players… thereby implying that in this simulation there is me, and then 2 other players.

    In using the Wizard of Odds table at https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/136/ it says with 3 players that on average (I know there’s a lot of variables that can change this) the table plays approximately 105 rounds per hour (not sure if this is ASM, manual, or a mixture of both… but I will assume it’s an average of both… but it doesn’t matter in this case). Nonetheless, with “play two hands” option originally turned OFF, I set the rounds per hour to 105 and get my SCORE for single hand play with two other players at the table. But clicking ON the “play two hands” option, I must now adjust the rounds per hour because now instead of 3 hands being played per round, there’s four (two are mine). Going to the same Wizard of Odds table, it shows with 4 players the table averages 84 rounds per hour. BUT two of the players is me, and I would assume that me playing two hands will be faster than the equivalent of 2 different players. Should I adjust the 84 rph up to account for my synergies? If so, approximately what percentage?

    Just wondering if anyone’s done the empirical analysis of this.
    Yes, this topic has been discussed ad nauseam over the years. And many have contended what you do -- namely that you can play your two hands faster than you and another player could each play one hand, side by side. That may be true, but I doubt that it a has a big effect. By the way, Wong did studies of the number of hands per hour, which you can find on page 237 of PBJ, and his values are higher -- 116 for three players and 91 for four. He states his assumptions, as did I, in BJA3, p. 18 (getting 98 for four players).

    But, as Norm mentions, dealer speed (and player speed, too) is so variable that these are all just very broad averages.

    Don

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Actually time the speeds for shoes including the shuffle for various conditions. Use the average for the conditions you want to sim instead of what someone has decided it might be.

  5. #5
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Actually time the speeds for shoes including the shuffle for various conditions. Use the average for the conditions you want to sim instead of what someone has decided it might be.
    Yes, I thought of that. However I've only been playing "live" for 3 months and am just now feeling ready to play 2 hands simultaneously (but have not as of yet). Therefore I have no two-hands timed data... and was curious if anyone else did.

    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    ... I doubt that it a has a big effect.

    Don
    My SWAG is possibly a 15% increase in speed. Therefore comparing the 84 rph and 97 rph (15% increase) results in CVCX shows.... NO difference in SCORE , and .... wait for it... amazingly... a 15% increase in $ /hr. (well DUH).

    So Don is correct with no effect in SCORE (my OP metric for comparison).

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by SteinMeister View Post
    My SWAG is possibly a 15% increase in speed. Therefore comparing the 84 rph and 97 rph (15% increase) results in CVCX shows.... NO difference in SCORE , and .... wait for it... amazingly... a 15% increase in $ /hr. (well DUH).

    So Don is correct with no effect in SCORE (my OP metric for comparison).
    SCORE assumes 100 rounds per hour so it wouldn't change. The c-SCORE can have whatever rph you set it to be and should change.

  7. #7
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    133


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    SCORE assumes 100 rounds per hour so it wouldn't change. The c-SCORE can have whatever rph you set it to be and should change.
    Hmm, not sure what the "c-Score" is.

    The CVCX Manual references it in the Table of Contents on pg 15, but pg15 has no reference to it (nor does it show up anywhere else with a search).

    The CVData Users Manual has no reference to it (searching for "c Score").

    The CVData Reference Manual has one blurb about it, and references it as the same thing as SCORE (pg 58).

  8. #8
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    SCORE has a specific definition for strategy/game comparison. But, we don't all have exactly the same bankroll, speed, etc. I think it was Michael Canjar that coined c-SCORE which is really the same thing, adjusted for different bankrolls, desired risk, et. al. to better fit it to how a particular player plays. In any case, the basic concepts of maximizing risk vs. reward that were the aim of Don's SCORE are retained.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    SCORE has a specific definition for strategy/game comparison. But, we don't all have exactly the same bankroll, speed, etc. I think it was Michael Canjar that coined c-SCORE which is really the same thing, adjusted for different bankrolls, desired risk, et. al. to better fit it to how a particular player plays. In any case, the basic concepts of maximizing risk vs. reward that were the aim of Don's SCORE are retained.
    Richard Reid coined c-SCORE.

    Don

  10. #10
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Yikes, apologies to the good Dr. Two good folks that I miss.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

Similar Threads

  1. CVCX "Number of Players" Feature
    By MercySakesAlive in forum Software
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-07-2018, 10:07 AM
  2. CVCX Setting ROR
    By MercySakesAlive in forum Software
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2018, 10:21 PM
  3. Setting the Threads option on CVData/CVCX
    By Norm in forum Software
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-19-2014, 03:41 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-16-2014, 11:58 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.