See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Using CV Data to Simulate No Shuffle Blackjack

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Using CV Data to Simulate No Shuffle Blackjack

    Circa 1983, Wong discovered that a lone player versus the dealer enjoys a .25% player advantage (versus what is expected: a .50% player disadvantage) when the cards are never shuffled (6 decks, 75% penetration, Atlantic City rules; 1 million shoes representing 44 million hands).

    After each shoe, Wong's computer placed the unplayed cards on top of the discards and then performed a random cut before dealing again.

    I have spent roughly 3 hours trying, to no avail, to get CV Data to replicate this finding. What I have tried is placing the 1.5 decks of unplayed cards on top of ("TOP" in CV Data language) the 4.5 decks of discards in the "Shuffle Editor" screen, and then clicking on "Random Cut" in the "Shuffling" sceen under "Nuances." Also, I set the number of shuffles before new cards to a very high number, like 9,999,999. However, my efforts generate an Initial Bet Advantage (IBA) of about a .70% player DISadvantage for the lone player.

    I would appreciate it if anyone can offer any assistance in letting me know how to get CV Data to replicate Wong's finding.

    Thank you in advance!
    Last edited by Overkill; 01-20-2023 at 11:40 PM.

  2. #2
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,003
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Did you include Early Surrender? In any case, one million shoes isn't enough.
    "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 Norm View Post
    Did you include Early Surrender?
    No early surrender in Wong's study.

    Don

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I am getting somewhere, potentially.

    Norm, I understand about the insufficient number of hands. But right now my purpose is to 'calibrate' my CV Data settings (specifically "Real Shuffle") by comparing 'apples to apples' or, in this case, Wong's interesting finding with me obtaining the same finding. That is, before I proceed with my personal research, I want to try to make sure I don't have any settings applied that shouldn't be applied and that I have settings applied that should be applied, etc.

    And yes, I applied 'Early Surrender vs. Ace,' but applied neither 'Early Surrender vs. 10' nor ''Late Surrender.' (Don, I realize you indicated above that Wong did not use Early Surrender.).

    Other settings for this Atlantic City game, circa 1983, that I employed: 6 deck; stay on Soft 17; split to 4 hands; resplit Aces; Dealer peeks on 10; Dealer peeks on Ace; Hard DD on 11, 10, or 9; Soft DD on "Any Soft hand," "DD after split;" "Max. cards to DD = 2;" "Complete Basic Strategy that I slightly adjusted the CV Data complete basic strategy tables for this stay on Soft 17 game; flat betting; NO SHUFFLING WHATSOEVER; 40 fixed rounds per shoe; 1,100,000 shoes; 44,000,000 rounds; 45,328,957 hands.

    With the above parameters, on one of several attempts (the other attempts were close to the following) I did obtain a lone player advantage of TBA of +.240 and IBA of +.270, S.E.=.017. (Wong reported a player advantage of +.25 in his study.).

    HOWEVER, Wong apparently employed a random cut card, and when I employ a random cut card, my IBA is roughly -.70 or so (player disadvantage). But when I set the cut card to 50%, I obtained the above IBA of +.270, which is close to Wong's +.25.

    A) Is it possible Wong labeled a 50% cut as a "Random Cut," or maybe his computer performed a 50% cut when he programmed it to perform a Random Cut?

    B) Do the above settings (Partial Surrender, Resplit Aces, etc.) seem like what Wong may have delineated in his (now 40 year-old) Atlantic City rules simulation?

    Any other comments?

  5. #5
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,003
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Well, the cut card is likely to make a difference. Did he wash the cards at the start?
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The article indicated that Wong "never started with cards in new deck order."

    Over the course of 1,000,000 six deck shoes, is it possible that, with Wong's software, a "Random Cut" of anywhere from 1% to 99% of each shoe would have averaged out to a Cut of 50%? In theory, are these 2 the same, especially when applied to cards that are never shuffled?

    (CV Data does not rely on someone selecting 50% for a Cut to represent a Random Cut; indeed, CV Data has a specific "Random Cut" option in addition to being able to choose varying percentages of Cuts. But, once again, perhaps Wong or his software did indeed (mistakenly?) represent a "Random Cut" by inserting the cut card at the exact mid-point of each shoe?).

  7. #7


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Why are you guessing at what Wong's parameters were, when he clearly specified them in his book? Do you not have Pro BJ? It's all there, pp. 246-248, especially the Methodology section, page 246 (several of your assumptions about what Wong assumed are wrong).

    Don

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks, Don. No, I didn't have a copy of "Professional Blackjack" until I downloaded an electronic copy this afternoon. Boy, what a resource! Wong covers a lot of topics. I am especially enjoying the section on Tells and dealer body language. Don, why have you never talked about this book previously. (Just kidding - I know how highly you think of it.).

    In Chapter 29, I learned that Wong's study, which my posts in this thread reference, used a dealer pick-up procedure known as "lay and pay" as opposed to what I am familiar with in casino play - "pick and pay." The difference involves the location of the dealer's cards in the discard pile.

    Boy, do I feel silly now as that critical parameter of Wong's study likely explains most of the reason I was unable to replicate it using CV Data.

  9. #9
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,003
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    CVData has a couple methods of pickup. But, I don't know exactly what Wong did. It isn't just the order in which hands are picked up. It is the order of the cards in the dealer hand that depend on how the dealer hand is laid out.
    "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
    1) Wong's simulation involved 'lay and pay,' for an unknown reason. Perhaps that dealer procedure was considered industry standard 40 years ago.

    2) However, as I understand it, "pick and pay" is the norm (no pun intended) nowadays. With pick and pay, THE DEALER'S CARDS END UP ON THE TOP (AND FACE DOWN, OF COURSE) OF THE DISCARD PILE AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH ROUND. So, to be clear, ALL PLAYERS' CARDS END UP UNDERNEATH (AND FACE DOWN, OF COURSE) THE DEALER'S CARDS AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH ROUND.

    3) Regarding how a player's cards themselves are ordered (face down) in the discard pile: the last card received by the player is below the first card received, with any other cards in between. So, if a player's first card is a 4 and her second card is a 9 and her last card is a 5, her cards in the discard pile would be ordered (face down) in the following manner, from top to bottom: 4-9-5.

    4) Regarding how the dealer's cards themselves are ordered (face down) in the discard pile: the dealer's hole card is below the up card, which is below any hit cards, which are (is) below the last card received. So, if a dealer's hole card is a 3 and her up card is a 4 and her first hit card is a 2 and her second hit card is a 5 and her last card received is a 6, his cards in the discard pile would be ordered (face down) in the following manner, from top to bottom: 6-5-2-4-3.

    5) I am assuming in Wong's study that the dealer's hole card was received AFTER the dealer's first card (up card). And I am assuming the dealer picked up the (face up) cards of multiple players in order from the dealer's right to the dealer's left and not vice-versa.

    Norm, is it the 'default' of CV Data's "Real Shuffle" to follow the exact same dealer procedures I outlined above in 2), 3), 4) and 5)?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-15-2017, 03:17 PM
  2. How do I simulate a vulnerability in Blackjack?
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-30-2014, 11:26 AM
  3. Can CV Data simulate the Speed Count?
    By Boardwalker in forum Software
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-06-2013, 04:20 AM
  4. How do I simulate this in CVCX or CVDATA?
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-23-2012, 05:41 AM
  5. How do you Simulate COB in CVDATA 4.0?
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-18-2012, 06:24 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.