Javascript simulation with graphs

[BackCounter]

The problem was in the hole card selection. It was based on a regular deck and that threw everything off. Now based on the deck with the current count, the 8,8 vs 10 graph looks like the one in the Hi-Lo book. And the variance does not go up as fast.

88vs10.jpg

ramp3.png

Risk-averse indices from graphing CE rather than EV (note 10 vs 10):

10v10.jpg

10v10_ra.jpg

The graphs do look a little wobbly; will probably need to do more iterations at the expense of more time.

Can't get away from generating deck patterns without one sim taking 5-10 hours for the high counts. The program walks through a deck and when it gets to the appropriate count, saves the pattern: deck position and the number of -1, 0, and +1 cards on each side. Any number of decks can be created from the pattern, with the actual cards shuffled and redistributed. Using integer counts, the deck position has to be a multiple or simple fraction of 52; for high counts, there are not very many patterns. But it seems to work; the results look the same as finding a new deck for every iteration.

For those who are interested . . . .

-BC

[Gronbog]

And that my sim only used decks with actual integer counts; they had not been floored.

This seems like an obvious bias to me.

I thought about using decks with a range of counts, all floored to the same integer, but that seemed like it would be less accurate.

Why would you think that? This is exactly what happens during actual live play.

Going back to this comment ...

The program walks through a deck and when it gets to the appropriate count, saves the pattern: deck position and the number of -1, 0, and +1 cards on each side. Any number of decks can be created from the pattern, with the actual cards shuffled and redistributed. Using integer counts, the deck position has to be a multiple or simple fraction of 52

I see another source of bias. Namely that you also need to sample a variety of penetrations for each true count. A true count of X at penetration P1 is not the same as a true count of X at penetration P2. Furthermore, the probability of true count X is not the same at all penetrations. You need to sample them at all possible penetrations at the rate at which they would naturally occur. This (and more) is why representative decks do not generate accurate results.