HiLo + 7m9c Sim Results

[bjanalyst]

Than you are making stuff up. Not that I am getting off track with definitions it is because you don't know your Blackjack and you are trying to act like an expert.

It better comparing the HL w 7SC and HL w 7m9c using simulation rather than doing CC.

Nothing in Blackjack is linear beside insurance.

Again, nothing in Blackjack is linear beside insurance. You forgot to list the disadvantage of Correlation Coefficient:

Disadvantage of Correlation Coefficient

1. It doesn't calculate or give information about average bet.
2. It doesn't give info regarding win rate/round and win rates/hour.
3. It doesn't give info regarding standard deviation for hours and rounds played.
4. It doesn't give info on risk of ruin.
5. It doesn't give info on performance (DI, CE, CE/WR and SCORE).
6. It doesn't give info on the N0 it require to overcome one standard deviation.
7. It doesn't give info on the expect win per hour.

The list could go on and on and on....

Unless you are less than one deck, the linear approximation to blackjack is EXCELLENT.

I told you that CC do not replace sims. Sims are the ultimate authority.

And I am not trying to generate a bunch of statistics with CC that you get from sims.

I am just trying to compare strength of various counts.

The answer to your question of whether sims should be used instead of CC is that BOTH should be used.

They must be in sync. If CC increases then SCORE should increase and if not then one of the two is in error. Considering CC are very simple to generate and sim program are very complex, then if SCORE does not increase when CC increases, that would indicate that there is probably a programming error in the sim program.

That is exactly what happened with HL w 7m9c. The CC predicted HL w 7m9c top 6 should be give a more powerful count than HL but the sim program was run the SCORE initially decreased which made no sense. So Gronbog began troubleshooting his sim program putting individual one of the top six strategy changes at a time to see which of top 6 strategy changes resulted in the SCORE decreasing. He found the culprit and then fixed his code and then posted the sim results of HL w 7m9c.

Testing all six top HL w 7m9c as a group could hide an error in increasing CC increasing SCORE.

Note that testing each of the top six HL w 7m9c strategy changes individually is additional confirmation that increased CC predict increased SCORE. Each of the top 6 strategy changes was tested individually and each top 6 strategy change increased the SCORE.

When both CC and sims agree, then you can be confident that your answer is correct.

My goal with CC is just to see which count system is strongest. I am not trying to generate the bunch of statistics that sim programs generate.

CC have proven time and time again to correctly show relative strength between various count systems and can be done quickly with zero variance. That is what I am interested in and so CC work great for determining relative strength of various count system.

[BJGenius007]

1. Take a long time to run and are tedious to set up.
2. Require the calculation of indices for each playing strategy (another potential source of error) for the counts being compared.
3. There is also the problem of variance with simulations which is reduced by increasing the number of hands simulated.

Advantages of Correlation Coefficients:

1. WACC and BCC can be done in a matter of minutes.
2. WACC and BCC are exact with zero variance.
3. WACC and BCC used to compare various counts require no indices.

Correlation Coefficients are calculated with the tag values of the count being analyzed and the EoR. EoR are LSL estimates, so they assume that blackjack is linear. Simulations have no assumptions on blackjack being linear. With less than one deck is remaining, non-linearity kicks in.

In statistics, the correlation coefficient measures the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables on a scatterplot. Which two variables in Blackjack world do you want to apply when you use the word correlation coefficient? If CC have high value, it just means these two variable have a great almost linear relationship between them. If you can prove something and SCORE have high correlation coefficient then you prove that something is good for counting.

You cannot make a statement like "I have yet to find a single incident where the CC increased and the SCORE decreased."

You can make a statement like "CC of PE and SCORE is high."

[Norm]

Advantages of Correlation Coefficients:

1. WACC and BCC can be done in a matter of minutes.
2. WACC and BCC are exact with zero variance.
3. WACC and BCC used to compare various counts require no indices.

1. CVData can run about three billion rounds a minute.
2. Well, what good is it to be exact with zero variance when the answer is incorrect? How is that an advantage?
3. Well, if they require no indices, they're incorrect. The fact they don't take indices into account is a disadvantage.

My physics teacher taught that a number expressed with more digits than are known is wrong. What you appear to be saying is that you are getting an exact answer. It may be exact -- but it is wrong if you expressing it as an exactness.

[bjanalyst]

1. CVData can run about three billion rounds a minute.
2. Well, what good is it to be exact with zero variance when the answer is incorrect? How is that an advantage?
3. Well, if they require no indices, they're incorrect. The fact they don't take indices into account is a disadvantage.

My physics teacher taught that a number expressed with more digits than are known is wrong. What you appear to be saying is that you are getting an exact answer. It may be exact -- but it is wrong if you expressing it as an exactness.

Thanks for your great feed back and very impressive how many hands can be run by CV Data in one minute! You have a great program.

I am just comparing CC for relative strengths. I can calculate indices but indices are not used to compare strength of various counts.

CC and sims complement each other and both should be used as check on each other. As I stated earlier, Gronbog first sim of HL w 7m9c reduced the HL SCORE but because CC increased this did not make sense so he troubleshooted his program and found his coding error.

I want to make it clear that I did NOT prove that I never said that an increase in CC always means an increase in the SCORE. I just said from my experience I have not found a situation where CC increased and SCORE decreased.

[Norm]

I can calculate indices but indices are not used to compare strength of various counts.

They must be, as different counts have differing abilities to make effective use of indices.

CC and sims complement each other and both should be used as check on each other.

Sim bugs generally have effects lower than simple estimates based upon correlation can measure. Blackjack includes so many, many nuances and interactions that cannot be seen, much less measured, by simple algebraic calcs.

[seriousplayer]

Unless you are less than one deck, the linear approximation to blackjack is EXCELLENT.

I told you that CC do not replace sims. Sims are the ultimate authority.

And I am not trying to generate a bunch of statistics with CC that you get from sims.

I am just trying to compare strength of various counts.

The answer to your question of whether sims should be used instead of CC is that BOTH should be used.

If sims are the ultimate authority why aren't you using simulations to check your work but has to rely on correlation coefficient?

They must be in sync. If CC increases then SCORE should increase and if not then one of the two is in error. Considering CC are very simple to generate and sim program are very complex, then if SCORE does not increase when CC increases, that would indicate that there is probably a programming error in the sim program.

That is exactly what happened with HL w 7m9c. The CC predicted HL w 7m9c top 6 should be give a more powerful count than HL but the sim program was run the SCORE initially decreased which made no sense. So Gronbog began troubleshooting his sim program putting individual one of the top six strategy changes at a time to see which of top 6 strategy changes resulted in the SCORE decreasing. He found the culprit and then fixed his code and then posted the sim results of HL w 7m9c.

Testing all six top HL w 7m9c as a group could hide an error in increasing CC increasing SCORE.

Note that testing each of the top six HL w 7m9c strategy changes individually is additional confirmation that increased CC predict increased SCORE. Each of the top 6 strategy changes was tested individually and each top 6 strategy change increased the SCORE.

The increase in SCORE could be due to the indices that you chosen. What if you choose indices that don't increase SCORE at all like 4,4 vs 4 than you might not see the SCORE increase.

When both CC and sims agree, then you can be confident that your answer is correct.

My goal with CC is just to see which count system is strongest. I am not trying to generate the bunch of statistics that sim programs generate.

CC have proven time and time again to correctly show relative strength between various count systems and can be done quickly with zero variance. That is what I am interested in and so CC work great for determining relative strength of various count system.

Disagree if your only intention was to use CC to see which count system was the strongest why are you posting your count here.You can just do the calculation and show that CC is higher and move on. But you are trying to get us to simulate the count for you which you don't have simulator.

[Norm]

Strategy comparison is much messier than most think. Here's the beginning text of one attempt that I made:

There have been numerous attempts at comparing strategies, and all are flawed — including this one. The problem with comparing strategies is that it is simply not possible to include all of the huge number of variables involved in a general study. I thought that I would take a stab at including as many variables as possible into four SCORE charts. The four charts are for one, two, six, and eight decks and compare twelve strategies. The variables included are:

-Penetration – Nothing new here as far as this book goes. Every reasonable penetration by the card is included. For each penetration, the optimal betting ramp is calculated and then SCORE is calculated using that ramp.

-Bet Spread – Each point is calculated for two bet spreads. For example, for the six-deck chart, betting ramps are calculated for each penetration for spreads of 1-8 and 1-16. The SCOREs of the two calculations are averaged.

-Rules – There are sixteen combinations of the major rules, S17, DAS, LS, and RSA. But not all combinations exist and the combinations that do, exist in different percentages of Blackjack tables depending on the number of decks. Fortunately, we have already looked at the table conditions that currently exist in the U.S. on page 166.
For example, we see that H17, DAS exists on 24% of six-deck tables. Add RSA and you have another 21%, etc. So, let us calculate the SCOREs for each penetration, for two spreads, for each of the sixteen rule sets, and then create a weighted average SCORE depending on the frequencies of rule sets that currently exist in the U.S. Let us perform these calculations for each of the major strategies and plot them all on one chart. We will call this a Super-SCORE.

So, for the six-deck chart, we have 12 strategies, 104 penetrations, 2 bet spreads and 16 rule sets for a total of 39,936 sets of conditions. For each of these sets, the optimal betting ramp and SCORE are calculated from simulation. These results are then combined into 1,248 weighted averages, and charted in a single graph. A picture is worth a thousand words.

So, for six decks alone, I sim 39,936 conditions for each of 12 strategies and weighted them. Overall, about two million, two billion round sims were run. And that's just a compromise as it's one set of indices and methods of calculating TC.

The rest of this study can be found at: https://qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage188.htm

[bjanalyst]

They must be, as different counts have differing abilities to make effective use of indices.

Sim bugs generally have effects lower than simple estimates based upon correlation can measure. Blackjack includes so many, many nuances and interactions that cannot be seen, much less measured, by simple algebraic calcs.

I agree with everything you are saying and I never said CC were better than sims. What I said is CC is another tool in your toolbox that you can use along with sims. They should both be used together.

The bug that Gronbog found was hard 14 v T with one HL w 7m9c top 6 strategy change for surrender and another for standing. The bug was his program mixing up surrendering and standing on hard 14 v T or something like that. You can ask him for more details if you are interested.

The point is the CC increased which would indicate an increase in SCORE. When SCORE did not increase Gronbog analyzed each of the top 6 HL w 7m9c strategy changes individually to see which strategy change was not increasing the SCORE. That is how he found out about the hard 14 v T bug. So CC was useful as it said that there must be a bug in the sim program and there was.

So use both CC and sims together. They should agree. If CC increases SCORE should increase.

Again, I did not prove that every time CC increases SCORE increases.

I said from all of the sims that I had Gronbog do for me, every time CC increased the SCORE increased.

And of course you are correct these is much more to blackjack than simple algebraic calculations but these calculations of CC are a good place to START and a spring board for further analysis.

[bjanalyst]

The increase in SCORE could be due to the indices that you chosen. What if you choose indices that don't increase SCORE at all like 4,4 vs 4 than you might not see the SCORE increase.

Comparing CC does NOT involve indices at all. Only CC are compared.

And CC are to be used as a STARTING point to be confirmed with sims. They both should be used togehter.

Again, I stated multiple times that I did NOT prove that every time CC increased SCORE would increase.

I said from every simulation that Gronbog did for me, every time CC increased SCORE increased.

So imperical evidence points to an increase in CC means an increase in SCORE and the count with the higher CC should have the higher SCORE.

I did NOT prove this but I can say that I have yet to find an instance where this is not the case.

[seriousplayer]

The increase in SCORE could be due to the indices that you chosen. What if you choose indices that don't increase SCORE at all like 4,4 vs 4 than you might not see the SCORE increase.

Comparing CC does NOT involve indices at all. Only CC are compared.

And CC are to be used as a STARTING point to be confirmed with sims. They both should be used togehter.

Again, I stated multiple times that I did NOT prove that every time CC increased SCORE would increase.

I said from every simulation that Gronbog did for me, every time CC increased SCORE increased.

So imperical evidence points to an increase in CC means an increase in SCORE and the count with the higher CC should have the higher SCORE.

I did NOT prove this but I can say that I have yet to find an instance where this is not the case.

If CC does involve indices than you top 6 indices is useless in comparison. But the simulation was done with the simulation. Then there is a problem.

[bjanalyst]

If CC does involve indices than you top 6 indices is useless in comparison. But the simulation was done with the simulation. Then there is a problem.

Indices are not needed if only strength of systems is being compared with CC method - just CC are needed of each count system so they can be compared.

Indices are needed to do sims. Indices are needed to use the count system.

Remember when trying to figure out why the SCORE decreased, Gronbog did his own indices and compared them with my LSL indices and they were very close. The decrease in SCORE had nothing to do with the indices - it had to do with an bug in hard 14 v T.

Gronbog used my LSL generated indices for the top 6 and used HL + (1/2)*(7m9c) for betting and HL indices for everything else in his sim of HL w 7m9c which he then published.

[Norm]

Of course indices are required to determine the strength of a system. A method that does not require indices cannot be a valid method. Otherwise, no one would ever use indices.

[seriousplayer]

Remember when trying to figure out why the SCORE decreased, Gronbog did his own indices and compared them with my LSL indices and they were very close. The decrease in SCORE had nothing to do with the indices - it had to do with an bug in hard 14 v T.

Wrong!!! Indices affects SCORE and N0. Some indices decrease N0 and therefore increase SCORE, like splitting 10,10 vs 5 and 6. Some indices decrease SCORE and increase N0. Split indices like splitting 7,7 vs 8 would decrease SCORE and increase N0.

This mother fu**er don't know his blackjack.