See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 26 of 26

Thread: Best reference for EV-maximizing indices

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I'm not seeing your rules and conditions anywhere in this tread and the image of your results is too fuzzy for me to read.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Here are the rules and conditions for my game, hope this helps! (if I left any out, feel free to ask):

    3:2 BJ payout
    6D
    52 card pen
    H17
    DAS
    No RSA
    LS
    SP4
    No ENHC
    Simulation played heads-up with only 1 hand the entire time.
    Always play until end of shoe (will not wong or end simulation mid-shoe)
    Burns 1 card at top of each shoe (not added to count)

    I'll try putting the results in a public google sheet, that should have better resolution. Let me know if there are problems accessing the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

    Note that my index range is -9 to +10, so indexes with those values are likely rounded and greyed out.

    Format for index chart:

    H [1+:S]3.17

    H = Basic strategy play (S = stand, H = hit, D = double, DS = double or stand, P = split, F = surrender)
    [1+:S] = index. (stand at tc1 or above, 0/neg indices are rounded downwards)
    3.17 = rough accuracy. Calculated by taking the EV difference of top 2 actions in the closest decision, and dividing by the sum of each action's std err. It's not the best method, and I plan to change it. But if I'm understanding correctly, then it should give a lower value than Dr. Ethier's formula.

    Values are compared against Table 1.1 in the Hi-Lo book. Only 10v10 has been corrected.
    Last edited by Chuckles!; 10-08-2024 at 02:55 PM. Reason: removing unintended emojis

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Cacarulo View Post
    In the book, the estimate of remaining decks is rounded to the nearest half deck. That is, the RC can be divided by 6, 5.5, 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1.
    Then the division is rounded down (floored).
    Also, no deck alterations have been used, and estimation/tc conversion follows Cacarulo's advice

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    What is the correct reading of "No ENHC"
    G Man

  5. #18


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by G Man View Post
    What is the correct reading of "No ENHC"
    Believe your referring to European No Hole Card

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by G Man View Post
    What is the correct reading of "No ENHC"
    Believe your referring to No European No Hole Card

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Believe YOU'RE referring ...

    Don

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Believe your referring to No European No Hole Card
    LOL, I know perfectly well what ENHC means, it's the term "No ENHC" that is funny, something like "No S17" instead of "H17"
    G Man

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuckles! View Post
    Agreed, I do plan to run it for 200 billion at some point. But since I'm still seeing repeated patterns of errors (13/14/15/s16/s17/s18/s19 vs 2/3/4 is consistently high by 1)
    The reason I asked for your rule set is that I wanted to check these plays against the raw data from the sims I did for the HLCCS book.

    • We did not publish an index for A5 vs 2 because the strike point occurs too rarely to be of any consequence. This would make it difficult to converge.
    • Of the other plays above, several were close calls (13 vs 3, 14 vs 3, 15 vs 2, A5 vs 3,4, A6 vs 2,3, A7 vs 2,3,4) and may not converge after only 20 billion rounds.
    • Of these only A6 vs 3 failed to converge after 200 billion rounds.

    I suggest simulating with the full 200 billion rounds to see if any of these converge before looking blindly through your code for errors.

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Ok, sounds good. I should have results for 200B by next Wednesday.

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Looks like my results are in earlier than I thought. I've added some sheets here (200 billion round index chart + full EV data across all upcard/hand/tc combinations): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1585507930

    Reminder that the accuracy score (number after each index) is only a rough approximation and is most likely less than the standard errors produced by Dr. Ethier's calculation. StdErr listed for each individual EV on the upcard charts is calculated using 16 samples of 12.5 billion. Next simulation, I plan to have more reliable numbers to estimate accuracy.

    Aside from 3 indices that are off by more than 1, all of the errors have a rough accuracy of <4. I'm sure some are the result of lack of convergence, but it seems to me there's still a clear pattern of slight overestimation for the hard and soft hands, and some very strange things going on in the splits.

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Dave, do you happen to have the house edge calculated for the simulations you ran? (using BS or indices) I'm trying to find if my error is in the game simulation, or how I'm handling the results. If the BS HE matches, I believe that would indicate the later.

    The values I've calculated for my sim are:
    -.564% BS HE
    -.403% HE w/indices
    Last edited by Chuckles!; 10-17-2024 at 01:03 PM.

  13. #26


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Ok, good news! I tried simulating both sets of indices in CVCX to get the house edge from an independent source. (10 billion rounds each, which should give a standard error of 0.00115% if I'm not wrong)

    Basic Strategy: -0.556%
    HLCCS Indices: -0.405%
    My Indices: -0.401%

    This is NOT to say that my indices are more accurate. I think what happened is that there's some microscopic configuration difference and the CVCX sim I set up happens to match my config better. But it does seem to indicate that there aren't any significant issues with my code which is mainly what I was trying to verify. Please do let me know if I made a mistake somewhere, and thanks again to everyone who helped me out!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. A reference, please.
    By Phoebe in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-20-2018, 07:09 AM
  2. David Spence: Updated quick reference guide
    By David Spence in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-28-2009, 10:03 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-14-2008, 10:13 PM
  4. Jim Connell: Lima count reference
    By Jim Connell in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-14-2001, 10:10 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.