Win/Loss is High for TC?

[Cacarulo]

Exactly. Basically, same numbers I got. Interestingly, k_c is showing 0.3064, and I'm not sure why. The numbers on pages 492-493, are much closer to yours and differ only at the fourth decimal. As always, when you run a sim, the rules interact; when you add or subtract numbers from a page, they can't do that.

Don

I don't know, my numbers are total dependent. Perhaps I should do the calculation, but composition dependent.

Cac

[Freightman]

His line that says "Late surrender vs. 10 or ES10" is somewhat ambiguous. Which is it? They're obviously not the same thing.

You tell me. Seems to me he’s saying they’re the same, which obviously they’re not. His number suggests LS only which is why his number is so high. Seems that debate is not in your playbook.

Late Surrender or ES10 with no hole card

[k_c]

I just did that Instead of OBO I used USA rules which are equivalent.

6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,ES10/LSv9 = -0.3770%
6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA3,SPL3,ES10/LSv9 = -0.3089%

From what I understood, it's about ESv10 and LSv9, but not LSvA, is that correct?
Because if LSvA were allowed, the expected values off the top would be even better:

6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,ES10/LSv9/LSvA = -0.3566%
6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA3,SPL3,ES10/LSv9/LSvA = -0.2884%

Sincerely,
Cac

From my total dependent program:

6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,ES10/LSv(2-9) = -0.3770%
6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA3,SPL3,ES10/LSv(2-9) = -0.3089%

Agrees with you (Program uses floats, not doubles)

6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,ES10/LSv(2-9)/LSvA = -0.3671%*
6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA3,SPL3,ES10/LSv(2-9)/LSvA = -0.2989%

A little difference.

Sincerely,
k_c

[Cacarulo]

From my total dependent program:

6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,ES10/LSv(2-9) = -0.3770%
6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA3,SPL3,ES10/LSv(2-9) = -0.3089%

Agrees with you (Program uses floats, not doubles)

6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,ES10/LSv(2-9)/LSvA = -0.3571%
6D,H17,DOA,DAS,SPA3,SPL3,ES10/LSv(2-9)/LSvA = -0.2989%

A little difference.

Sincerely,
k_c

Perhaps you may need to review the LSvA strategy. The difference could come from there, besides the double precision.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

You tell me. Seems to me he’s saying they’re the same, which obviously they’re not. His number suggests LS only which is why his number is so high. Seems that debate is not in your playbook.

Late Surrender or ES10 with no hole card

That's the doubt I have. It seems that the OP is confusing ES10 with LS. The interesting thing is that when doing the calculations with LS, I obtain:

-0.4617% (full LS) close to his -0.45%.
-0.4821% (full LS but no LSvA)

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

That's the doubt I have. It seems that the OP is confusing ES10 with LS. The interesting thing is that when doing the calculations with LS, I obtain:

-0.4617% (full LS) close to his -0.45%.
-0.4821% (full LS but no LSvA)

Sincerely,
Cac

I think the reason for his confusion is Norm’s erroneous statement of LS and ES10 on his calculator stating (with NHC) being equal. Your -.4617 would be applicable here provided Norms comment was correct validating his Higher House Edge. On that same basis, your -.4821 would also be correct as there is no LS v Ace. Anomalies abound.

However, since Norm is incorrect, Dons version now becomes the go to (pick your version) of approx -.36 and -.30 for ES10 and ES10 with RSA respectively. Now, in the Provincial jurisdiction westward, edges would be the same though LSA is allowed after peek. Interestingly enough, and according to the Wizard, LSA doesn’t add anything to house edge.

I couldn’t be bothered quoting the micro fractions.

[k_c]

Perhaps you may need to review the LSvA strategy. The difference could come from there, besides the double precision.

Sincerely,
Cac

Check overall LSEV T-6 v A

Unconditional EV (assumes non-blackjack loses to dealer BJ, blackjack pushes dealer BJ)
Stand: -.7216
Hit: -.6814
Double: -1.0554
Late Surrender: -.6537

To change to conditional EV which is computed after dealer has checked for blackjack and does not have it -
CondEV = (UncondEV + probBJ)/(1 - probBJ)
Cond Stand: -.5980
Cond Hit: -.5400
Cond Double: -1.0800
Cond Late Surrender: -.5

Either set of EVs can be used to get strategy.
Late Surrender is best strategy for either set of EVs.
The actual value of the hand to compute overall EV = -.6537 = Uncond LSEV

If ENHC is a rule unconditional EVs need to be used to reliably get strategy.

That's how I get what I get.

k_c

[jamison258]

There are some great discussions being made here bringing tons of insight into how different surrender rules affect edge. Amazing to read and analyze indeed.

I apologize to ruin the momentum, however, it seems my screenshot of my CVCX data was not included in the original post. I have attached it to the post, as well as this reply. See below.

Screenshot 2023-07-18 231513.png


As seen above, the "edge" at TC=0 is -0.14, which once again, appears to low even with deviations + basic strategy + counts being used. What setting am I incorrectly inputting?

[Freightman]

There are some great discussions being made here bringing tons of insight into how different surrender rules affect edge. Amazing to read and analyze indeed.

I apologize to ruin the momentum, however, it seems my screenshot of my CVCX data was not included in the original post. I have attached it to the post, as well as this reply. See below.

Screenshot 2023-07-18 231513.png


As seen above, the "edge" at TC=0 is -0.14, which once again, appears to low even with deviations + basic strategy + counts being used. What setting am I incorrectly inputting?

Hard to say, maybe nothing. The -.30 house edge previously mentioned refers to off the top house edge, not true 0 in the middle of the count. Your screenshot says 76% of hands are True + 0.99 and everything below. 24% of hands are obviously above. Sounds about right depending on cut. Your sim obviously says raise your bet at true+1. Further, the -.14 loss refers only to the 0 (zero) bucket. You’re not taking into account losses in the minus true counts which form a part of the overall house edge.

Use the radio button to reflect half true counts. With a -.3 he, half true counts will tell you to raise at true +.5. Should actually raise your expectation. Food for thought.

[Cacarulo]

I think the reason for his confusion is Norm’s erroneous statement of LS and ES10 on his calculator stating (with NHC) being equal. Your -.4617 would be applicable here provided Norms comment was correct validating his Higher House Edge. On that same basis, your -.4821 would also be correct as there is no LS v Ace. Anomalies abound.

However, since Norm is incorrect, Dons version now becomes the go to (pick your version) of approx -.36 and -.30 for ES10 and ES10 with RSA respectively. Now, in the Provincial jurisdiction westward, edges would be the same though LSA is allowed after peek. Interestingly enough, and according to the Wizard, LSA doesn’t add anything to house edge.

I couldn’t be bothered quoting the micro fractions.

Well, I wouldn't say that Norman's calculator is wrong despite the 'ambiguity.' If it were full LS, it would be quite close to my numbers or the ones from k_c.
Anyway, the OP says he checked several websites, not just Norman's. Which ones would those be?

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

There are some great discussions being made here bringing tons of insight into how different surrender rules affect edge. Amazing to read and analyze indeed.

I apologize to ruin the momentum, however, it seems my screenshot of my CVCX data was not included in the original post. I have attached it to the post, as well as this reply. See below.

Screenshot 2023-07-18 231513.png


As seen above, the "edge" at TC=0 is -0.14, which once again, appears to low even with deviations + basic strategy + counts being used. What setting am I incorrectly inputting?

The expected value of a particular TC (zero in this case) represents just that. It has nothing to do with the TOTAL expected value that would be obtained by summing across all TCs the
frequency of each TC multiplied by its corresponding expected value and the bet placed on each one. It's important to know that the sum of all frequencies should add up to 100%.
If the strategy used is basic (without indices) and the bet on each TC is flat, then the house edge would be obtained.
As we add indices to the basic strategy, assuming the bet remains flat, the house edge will decrease. If we also add concrete bets to this, the advantage will shift in our favor.

Sincerely,
Cac