See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 17

Thread: CVCX - confused about 1H/2H bet optimization

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    CVCX - confused about 1H/2H bet optimization

    I normally play 1 hand in -EV counts and 2 hands in +EV counts, with the exception of playing 1H regardless if there's not a spot open next to me or I'm the only player.

    The standard "conversion" from optimal 1H bet to optimal 2H bet, in BJA3 I think, is you multiply your 1H bet by .73 and bet that amount on each of two spots.

    My betting scheme is therefore based on 2 hands in + counts and when I play 1 hand in a + count, I add about 50% to the amount that'd I would have bet on each of 2 spots. For example, if my scheme calls for betting 2 x $100 and I'm only playing 1 spot, I would bet 1 x $150 instead.

    CVCX seems to be doing this differently, as these screenshots show. Seems that it's using a factor much higher than .73, or calculating it some other way. Assuming CVCX is right, I'm under-betting when playing 1 spot. Can someone clarify the correct way to "convert" my optimal bet from 1 spot to 2 spots?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Optimus Prime; 11-01-2019 at 07:41 PM.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Yikes accidentally included the name of a store in original images.... all fixed now.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I might have figured this out on my own - CVCX is prioritizing sticking to the spread I specified, right?

  4. #4
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Yes, it is using the spread that you set. But, also it is taking into account the differences in TC frequencies caused by you adding a hand when the count is higher. The .73 co-variance rule is used when you are always playing two hands -- not when you change according to the count.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  5. #5
    Senior Member JBourne's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Not near the ocean.
    Posts
    152


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I try to find an risk-equivalent pattern by adjusting the spread. You can usually tune in a ramp that has a similar SCORE between one hand and two-hands. Then you can compare the various statistics to understand the trade-offs.

    Sometimes someone takes your second spot. Sometimes you can't spread to two hands until a higher count because they require twice the minimum bet for two spots. Sometimes you want to spread with little bets to eat up little cards. If you have several different betting patterns that you know will meet your goals you can switch between them on the fly or as conditions permit.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Yeah, that's the idea; finding a risk-equivalent pattern, which I always understood to be bet about 1.5X as much on 1 spot as you would on each of 2 spots when you can't or shouldn't play 2 spots. CVCX doesn't agree and I can't understand why not.

    Also, in head-to-head game, it shows less EV per hour when playing 1 spot at the same ROR vs. 2 spots - seems that can't be right as you're supposed to only play 1 spot when playing head to head to conserve cards, right?

    So I'm still confused and I'm unsure how much to bet when playing only one spot in a good count, but I'll play around with it some more and see what I can figure out.

  7. #7
    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
    Betting 1.5x on two hands is correct if someone leaves the table when you switch to two hands. Otherwise, CVCX must adjust for the fact that the TC frequencies are changed by a adding another hand to each round at higher counts.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I get that any change in the game conditions will affect optimal bets, but this is really drastic! Take a look at these screenshots. I've got identical conditions, and identical ROR, but for 4 players vs. 1 player and me playing 2 hands with 4 players and 1 hand with 1 player.

    If I bet optimally, I should make about the same money per round, but it's not even close, plus N0 and SCORE become terrible. What am I missing?

    Screen Shot 2019-11-05 at 5.18.49 PM.jpgScreen Shot 2019-11-05 at 5.18.05 PM.jpg

  9. #9
    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
    The conditions are quite different. Most drastically, the spread changing from 19 to 30.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I had to change the spread to get the ROR to match. Isn't the idea to put out as much money as you can without exceeding your risk tolerance? That's why I changed the spread.

  11. #11
    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
    The idea is to maximize SCORE with the desired RoR. But, you obviously will have better results when you increase the spread.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Right, so what's driving the dramatically lower SCORE in the 1-hand head-to-head game, since ROR is the same? Is there something inherent about head-to-head 1-hand play that makes it riskier?

  13. #13
    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
    The lower spread. When you lower the spread, you lower the SCORE.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Confused by Thorp !
    By Tidalu in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-26-2018, 05:06 PM
  2. Red 7 vs. UBZ2 in CVCX. I'm confused.
    By Wino in forum Software
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-22-2016, 03:33 PM
  3. Confused on what to do?
    By BJprive in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-14-2015, 11:16 PM
  4. HiLo vs Zen - I'm confused
    By Cardguy in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 10-29-2015, 05:00 PM
  5. Chucke: confused about 17 vs. A among others
    By Chucke in forum Theory & Math
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-04-2005, 08:07 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.