CVData/CVCX requests

**Jack Jackson** · 01-03-2022, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by bejammin075

Different brains work differently. For me, the only way I side count is by using a 2nd balanced count. I'd hate to count an individual rank or block of ranks, I feel there are a lot of problems with that compared to balanced counts. It's like the difference between Thorp's early system of counting only tens to calculate a ratio (klunky & cumbersome) versus Hi-Lo (balanced, elegant and smooth).

Ya i feel the same way about that. The Ace Side Count is the only exception for betting and MP plays that i would consider, and even then its far from perfect. I would much rather prefer something balanced if possible. And as you mentioned keeping a balanced side count that could be far more accurate for a certain play or plays of a hand would be beneficial..And although MP Plays do work there a little bit of crude method and a little in-accurate to say the least.

Originally Posted by bejammin075

Jack will hopefully chime in (& correct me if I'm wrong), but I'm almost certain that what he was asking for and what I am asking for are the exact same thing. I'm not sure why, but nearly everyone doesn't get this idea when it's explained, and there are different & equivalent ways of thinking about it. Keeping 2 (or more) balanced counts allows the player to change tags as needed or as desired. I really do think it is like the difference between Thorp's klunky early ten-count versus the large improvement of balancing ranks to make Hi-Lo. I developed my system shortly after reading Don's BJA3 and Griffin's ToBJ 6th Edition. It's the next logical step. I am baffled that balanced side counts didn't become popular immediately after the publication of the EoR tables. I don't know about the system you simmed with 3 balanced counts, or if the designer did a good job with their strategy development. The way I devised my strategy, it would be impossible to be awful, because it is rooted in the fundamentals of blackjack. I can use the balanced side count a hundred different ways, like the way a Plains Indian used every scrap of a hunted bison. I cannot use regular multi-parameter counting, as you suggest, because I am not taking a single rank and determining an excess or deficit.

Yes this is what my first request was referring too.. I actually made/had TWO requests and Norm answered the 2nd one in regards of counting Face Cards individually. That initially caused a little bit of a mix up between the 2 requests i had. But i see where back on focus now focusing on a balanced side count that can implement different tags for different hands. I would like it IF CVdata could be able to switch counts for different hands. This of course would have to be done with an interface which would allow the user to pre-program the "playing strategy" cell by cell if so desired so that CVdata would trigger different "user strategys" created by the user..The bad news is, although im confident Norm Could do it, it might require a major overhaul and he may not find it worth it, i dont know.

**Norm** · 01-03-2022, 08:22 AM

My concern with additions is always the effect on speed when NOT using the addition. In this case, there is a trick CVData uses to support unusual exceptions for specific plays (e.g. composition dependent plays of which there can be several for one player total vs. dealer upcard). The speed impact may come from the two counts. This may not be bad as several types of side counts are already supported. The impact could be reduced by only adding it to the suit aware simulator, which is only used for real shuffles and custom bonuses/side bets, therefore not impacting normal sims. One problem would be creating stats that ensure the user knows this is working correctly. This would be difficult if more than one situation occurs in the same hand.

Would this occur for all types of decisions (hardHS, softHS, surrender, etc.)? And, I'm not keen on this fractional multiplier. Not sure how that fits in or why it would be desirable.

**bejammin075** · 01-03-2022, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

Would this occur for all types of decisions (hardHS, softHS, surrender, etc.)? And, I'm not keen on this fractional multiplier. Not sure how that fits in or why it would be desirable.

You can take a balanced side count and combine it with the running count anywhere an efficiency can be improved, such as any playing decision or side bet. Generally, use the side count multiplier that optimizes the efficiency with the EoR. I’ll keep going with this example of a side count of 5 & 6. I don’t use this but it is illustrative.

In the table shown, on the left are all the ranks, the main tags (doubled Halves) and the side tags. I assigned +1 to five and -1 to six. The side tags have a magnitude of 1 but could be chosen as a different number. In the right side of the table are shown the side count multipliers you could potentially use.

In the center column is a multiplier of 0, which is the same as using only the main count. At the bottom is the calculated playing efficiency of the tags for the hit/stand decision for 16 v T. 65.47% for the base system.

With a multiplier of 3, the tags are +6 for five, and -1 for six, with a playing efficiency of 87.77%.

With a multiplier of 5, the tags are +8 for five, and -3 for six, with a playing efficiency of 89.90%.

You could arbitrarily decide whether you prefer a multiplier of 3 or 4 or 5 for this particular play. Any of those choices improves the efficiency quite a bit. When the modified tags start to get relatively large, the proper indexes get a little bit inflated, generally. For 16 v T many people decide based on the RC because it is so close to neutral, but with the inflated tags of the larger multipliers, you could use an index of -1 (truncated), which is “inflated” relative to a running count play using the main system tags.

56 side Multipliers 16vT.jpg

A well-chosen side count can be checked for improvements in efficiency using the EoR tables for every playing decision, and every side bet. The example above comes off as long winded, but in Excel you just calculate the efficiency improvements of all the plays simultaneously, and have all the optimal multipliers (to the nearest integer or half integer, as you wish) calculated simultaneously.

About the fractional multipliers: Depending on the particulars (specific main count & side count, and a specific play), using 0.5 or 1.5 of the side count might be the best option for a play.

**Jack Jackson** · 01-04-2022, 01:34 AM

I Would like add another example but slightly different from Bens. The Primary Count is for the indexes in the Primary Strategy. Secondary 1 is the Side Count and the adjustments you would make to the Primary Strategy taken from the multiplier table..... Damn, 16vX isnt affected at all

**Norm** · 01-04-2022, 08:36 AM

I don't see how you actually use this. And one comment on EoRs, they are estimates not exact calcs. They shouldn't be expressed to two decimals for comparisons.

**Jack Jackson** · 01-04-2022, 02:23 PM

Norm i use a 22222100-2.75(10-2)J,Q,K-3

I then keep a side count 5+1 and 10 -1(the 5 and 10 have 2 values each)

which equals 22232100-3(for betting)

This is playing strategy "without" the 5/10 side count added.

The 5+1 /10-1 side count is the Multiplier Table. Bottom Table. Single Deck.

Now take 12 v 2 for example which has a index of +9 as seen in the playing strategy.

For every +1 point in the "Multiplier Table" i add +5 to My Running Count when i hold 12vs2.

So with less than 1 deck remaining to be played and a RC of 0 and +2 on the sidecount i will now stand on 12vs2 since 5x2(+10) exceeds the index of +9 for 12v2.

**Norm** · 01-05-2022, 09:25 AM

OK, this is clear. This is how the code for one of betting side counts works now. The MP code also uses multipliers from a table. It's just that the MP count is calculated differently. That's what I need to examine.

**Jack Jackson** · 01-05-2022, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

OK, this is clear. This is how the code for one of betting side counts works now. The MP code also uses multipliers from a table. It's just that the MP count is calculated differently. That's what I need to examine.

Well Good Luck with that Norm. Im glad to see your at least giving it some thought and giving your patreons some say so on the matter...Honestly though i dont see how your going to integrate that into CVdata. Trying to add a balanced side count to a playing strategy could get messy real quick, but who am i to say..Im sure theres several ways to go about it. I actually tried generating MP tables with CV before and just couldnt seem to get it to work right or it wasnt very user friendly..So maybe an update would be nice and maybe you can get it to sim some of those more complex counts...

Still unsure how you would go about this though. In My example above i was demonstrating a 5v10 side count. And when you added that to the Primary Count you got 22232100-3 which is a better suited count for H12. So im not sure if you would go about it this way and allow the user to trigger a particular count for individual hands which would really have nothing to do with a sidecount or if you would go about it in the way i described above which allows the user to add a sidecount strategy to their primary strategy? What i mean is, even though 22232100-3 for example is better suited for H12 than 22222100-2.75 would be. HOWEVER by the time you added the 5+1 Ten -1 side count It now has become better suited for H12 than 22232100-3 is even though they're the same count when added together. And thats because of the 5v10 side count. Am i making any sense here? lol.. Anyway im having a hard time trying to explain what it is im talking about. Its almost as IF you have two options to go about this.

1. Either allow the users to pre-program the hands to what tags they want to use for that particular hand or hands. Or 2. Use a sidecount strategy with Multipliers to adjust their Primary Strategy to a particular hand or hands. Which in my opinion is far more accurate. Such as what Ben was saying. Maybe he can explain it better to what im getting at.

**Norm** · 01-05-2022, 05:17 PM

That doesn't sound like a problem is the manner in which CVData works. CVData already supports many side counting methods in differing manners, differently for playing and betting concurrently. I'm not sure BeJ's system can be defined in the same manner.

**bejammin075** · 01-05-2022, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

That doesn't sound like a problem is the manner in which CVData works. CVData already supports many side counting methods in differing manners, differently for playing and betting concurrently. I'm not sure BeJ's system can be defined in the same manner.

I know nothing about programming, but the way that seems like the least work for Norm would be to allow the user to select a group of plays & specify new tags, and then to allow for several more play groups like this. From there, I think the user could run an index sim, or run regular sims. It would be up to the user to understand & figure out on their own which ranks & which multipliers they want to use.

**Jack Jackson** · 01-07-2022, 01:14 AM

I think it would be cool to see it laid out in very similiar fashion to the Multi-Parameter format. The real only difference would/should be is that there needs to be an option to attach a "Side-Count Strategy" (from the playing menu of course) just like the one where you attach the "Betting Side Count"(shown below). Then this of course "triggers" the "Multiplier Tables" in lieu of the "Multi-Parameter Tables". Or a separate strategy could be attached here as well. Theres No need for CVdata to generate the "Multiplier Tables" let this be the users job....

**Norm** · 01-07-2022, 11:50 AM

Are the two of your methods the same in all ways?

**bejammin075** · 01-07-2022, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

Are the two of your methods the same in all ways?

Generically, I think so because I can mostly follow what Jack is saying. I have a particular balanced side count in mind that I haven’t publicly stated what it is. In both our cases, we are talking about a 2nd parameter (the first parameter is the main count). One reason that I liked the idea of having (unlimited) groups of plays where the user can specify alternative tags (and an alternative index) is because this would accommodate any number of extra parameters. Suppose I wanted to add a 3rd parameter (my brain isn’t ready for it, but just suppose), that would be possible by updating which plays are grouped together and their associated tags. Just to make a silly example to illustrate the point, a 2nd parameter of a balanced side count of 2 & 3 would have different groups of plays where the associated tags will all be the same except that the tags for 2 and 3 will vary from group to group. Those varying tags take into account the tag multiplier that was chosen by the user when he/she developed the strategy. If a strategy was developed to add a 3rd parameter, let’s say a balanced side count of 4 and 5, now you would make new groups of plays taking into account that the tags used for 2, 3, 4 and 5 can vary.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk