How to simulate running count mistakes?

[Bibolobob]

I've tried using the CVdata "betting errors per hour" it is too different.

My assessment of errors is based on shoe count downs during training. I have a error rate of say +1/-1 of the running count 10% of the time. How can I simulate this to know how this would affect winrate?

[Freightman]

I've tried using the CVdata "betting errors per hour" it is too different.

My assessment of errors is based on shoe count downs during training. I have a error rate of say +1/-1 of the running count 10% of the time. How can I simulate this to know how this would affect winrate?

I can’t answer the question per se.
First, your rate of 10%, if accurate is far too high. Second, the effect of impact is minimal at beginning of shoe increasing in intensity the deeper you go.

In a deeply cut shoe, this easily translates to difference in medium to max or super max bet - or marginally profitable to unprofitable and vice versa.

[Norm]

Never thought of a way to specify this as there are so many ways a RC can be off.

[Bibolobob]

Being out 1 either way doesn't seem that bad in a 6/8 deck game. What is the best way to simulate this with the betting errors per hour?
Is there further information on how distribution of errors are made with "betting errors per hour" are errors made based on the selected betting strategy? for example if my betting strategy is:

TC<1 1 unit
TC2+ 40 units

would it make an error at 50% of time of 40 units? or more realistic 10% of time as true distribution of TC2+ in this example

[Norm]

Yes, the betting errors and playing errors options take into account your specified strategies. With betting, it will never make a bet not in your specified table.

[Bibolobob]

In my above example I bet 40 units 10% of the time and 1 unit 90% of the time. If I had set the simulation to 10 errors per hour what errors do you expect to be simulated?

I'm trying to understand so I can use this feature

[Norm]

Ten times per hour it will make the incorrect bet of those two bets. In most cases, the betting strategy has several steps. It does not err more than one step.

[Freightman]

With no errors, you can expect to make money with this far from optimal approach while experiencing an absolute shitload of variance - if this is in fact your planned approach. Pontificating further, I would suggest the break down would be more like 15 to 20% 40 unit bets and 80 to 85% 1 unit bets.

At 20%, this translates to 20 separate 40 unit bets per hour. With a 10% error factor, that means you are overstating or understating by an average of 1 each per 100 hands.

So, the downside potential is that you are possibly betting $25 when you should be betting $1000 and further the possibility that you are betting $1000 when you should be wagering $25.

Might I suggest a different strategy?

[Bibolobob]

yes please Frieghtman

[Norm]

If you want to see a better betting strategy, click Call CVCX on the results summary page. It will generate an optimal betting strategy according to your settings.

[Bibolobob]

I can’t answer the question per se.
First, your rate of 10%, if accurate is far too high. Second, the effect of impact is minimal at beginning of shoe increasing in intensity the deeper you go.

In a deeply cut shoe, this easily translates to difference in medium to max or super max bet - or marginally profitable to unprofitable and vice versa.

How do we know though? without being able to accurately simulate how can we know?

[Norm]

We don't. But, how do we define the many possible ways that people can make counting errors?

[Bibolobob]

We don't. But, how do we define the many possible ways that people can make counting errors?

I don't know how to program a simulator but there must be a way to make it simple...

each time the simulator reads a card can it factor in a certain percentage of the time the value is inverted