See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Cut Card Effect

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Cut Card Effect

    Hi,

    I found that the the cut card effect for 6D, H17, penetration 5.5/6, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr, is about -0.022%.

    However, my simulator shown that the cut card effect for 6D, S17, penetration 5.5/6, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr, is -0.031%.

    The difference is -0.009%(-0.031+0.022) when the game rule change from H17 to S17, Anyone here can help to verify it ? Any reason behind ?

    James

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    When the hit 17 rule is in effect it adds a -0.215 to the upfront house edge, making it worse.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    When the hit 17 rule is in effect it adds a -0.215 to the upfront house edge, making it worse.
    I am talking about cut card effect . . .
    When cards are dealt from CSM, say HE = 0.35%, but when cards dealt from shoe box(penetration 5.5/6), the house increase to 0.372%, the increment is 0.022%(this is call cut card effect !).

    OR

    Please help to find out the house edge under these scenarios:-

    1) CSM(shuffle after each round) - 6D, H17, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr

    2) Shoe box(penetration 5,5/6) - 6D, H17, penetration 5.5/6, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr

    3) CSM(shuffle after each round) - 6D, S17, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr

    4) Shoe box(penetration 5,5/6) - 6D, S17, penetration 5.5/6, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr
    Last edited by James989; 08-17-2018 at 07:42 AM.

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    A S17 game uses fewer cards per round on average than a H17 game, possibly allowing for more rounds with a concentration of low cards, on average, before the cut card.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    A S17 game uses fewer cards per round on average than a H17 game, possibly allowing for more rounds with a concentration of low cards, on average, before the cut card.
    Please help to find out the house edge under these scenarios:-

    1) CSM(shuffle after each round) - 6D, H17, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr

    2) Shoe box(penetration 5.5/6) - 6D, H17, penetration 5.5/6, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr

    3) CSM(shuffle after each round) - 6D, S17, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr

    4) Shoe box(penetration 5.5/6) - 6D, S17, penetration 5.5/6, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr

  6. #6


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by James989 View Post
    Please help to find out the house edge under these scenarios:-
    You've been a forum member for more than 5 years and you don't have software?

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by James989 View Post
    Hi,

    I found that the the cut card effect for 6D, H17, penetration 5.5/6, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr, is about -0.022%.

    However, my simulator shown that the cut card effect for 6D, S17, penetration 5.5/6, DOA, DAS, RS2, RSA2, PEEK, No Surr, is -0.031%.

    The difference is -0.009%(-0.031+0.022) when the game rule change from H17 to S17, Anyone here can help to verify it ? Any reason behind ?

    James
    The difference 0.01% between -0.02% and -0.03% is too trivial to ask for an explanation.

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by James989 View Post
    However, my simulator shown ...
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    The difference 0.01% between -0.02% and -0.03% is too trivial to ask for an explanation.
    Good point. What is the standard error of the EV in your simulations? The difference could simply be noise.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    Good point. What is the standard error of the EV in your simulations? The difference could simply be noise.
    3 billion rounds simulation for each scenario.....I don't think it is due to statistical error

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by James989 View Post
    3 billion rounds simulation for each scenario.....I don't think it is due to statistical error
    The issue - who the fuck cares? I’m amazed at the minutae of those who will obsess to the nth degree over something that cannot possibly help you in the heat of battle. Simply my modest opinion.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    The issue - who the fuck cares? I’m amazed at the minutae of those who will obsess to the nth degree over something that cannot possibly help you in the heat of battle. Simply my modest opinion.
    I am just hoping that someone can sim it for me, then I can verify my simulator of BJ SWITCH . . .I don't think you can find a BJ SWITCH simulation software in the market

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    The issue - who the fuck cares? I’m amazed at the minutae of those who will obsess to the nth degree over something that cannot possibly help you in the heat of battle. Simply my modest opinion.
    From a practical point of view, very true. But the OP is trying to verify the accuracy of his software. Reproducing known results within a reasonable tolerance is pretty much the only way to do this. Failure to accomplish this is a strong indication of a bug. For a CA, that tolerance needs to be small enough to be accounted for by rounding error in the hardware (i.e. minuscule). For simulators and other sampling processes, that tolerance is defined by the Standard Error.

    Quote Originally Posted by James989 View Post
    3 billion rounds simulation for each scenario.....I don't think it is due to statistical error
    The standard error for a 12 billion round simulation of a 6 Deck, 78 Cards Cut Off, S17, BJ 3/2, DOA, DAS, SPL34, SA1, PEEK game that I ran some time ago was 0.001046%. The standard error of the EV for your simulation of only 3 billion rounds could conceivably be significant compared 0.009% difference in results you're seeing. You can not compare simulation results to 3 decimal places of accuracy without considering the size of the standard error first.

    You should really have your simulator compute the standard error in these situations but in the mean time, one way to get a feel for its size would be to run the same simulation for the same game a few times and compare the differences in the results.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    From a practical point of view, very true. But the OP is trying to verify the accuracy of his software. Reproducing known results within a reasonable tolerance is pretty much the only way to do this. Failure to accomplish this is a strong indication of a bug. For a CA, that tolerance needs to be small enough to be accounted for by rounding error in the hardware (i.e. minuscule). For simulators and other sampling processes, that tolerance is defined by the Standard Error.


    The standard error for a 12 billion round simulation of a 6 Deck, 78 Cards Cut Off, S17, BJ 3/2, DOA, DAS, SPL34, SA1, PEEK game that I ran some time ago was 0.001046%. The standard error of the EV for your simulation of only 3 billion rounds could conceivably be significant compared 0.009% difference in results you're seeing. You can not compare simulation results to 3 decimal places of accuracy without considering the size of the standard error first.

    You should really have your simulator compute the standard error in these situations but in the mean time, one way to get a feel for its size would be to run the same simulation for the same game a few times and compare the differences in the results.

    Thanks for your advice, I will sim the games for another 17 billion( total 20 billion) rounds and see what is the results.

Similar Threads

  1. Francois: card eating effect, details...?
    By Francois in forum International Scene
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-10-2007, 01:17 PM
  2. Praying Mantis: Cut-Card Effect
    By Praying Mantis in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-13-2005, 05:20 PM

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.