Gorilla Player: CVBJ drill question

[Gorilla Player]

Mainly for Norm, but it might be of general interest.

On the drill options, the "test" idea is one I like, since not all drills apply to all counting schemes. However, suppose I set up a custom test with the following:

1. flashcards.
2. remaining deck estimation
3. counting / running counts
4. counting / full-table drill

When I do those, I get a ridiculously high score for number 2. I can easily do more than 60 of the deck estimations in a minute, which produces a really high value. The other tests produce much lower "rounds per minute". IE on the full-table drill, I get around 10 per minute. On the counting drill, I have it ask for the RC every 36 cards which is a better test (to me) than having it ask for the RC/TC after showing each pair of cards.

The problem I see is that the deck remaining rounds / minute is so ridiculously high (it is an easy drill) when I look at the chart, which I think is supposed to help me figure out where I am weak and need work, it appears I am weak everywhere but in doing deck estimation. I removed it from the drill to get rid of that bias, but am I interpreting this "chart" correctly"? IE say there are three tests, and two show wide bands and one is very narrow, that narrow band is a weakness, correct? What I am seeing in the above "quick test" that I created is one huge wide band for the decks remaining test, and very narrow bands for the others.

I do the 2-card 6d counting drill in about 140-150 seconds typically, where I have the flash interval set to .9 seconds. I sometimes run it at .8 as well, but .9 is more relaxed. The whole table drill is set to 5 seconds per "flash" with an extra few seconds to find the right button but I generally hit the right button before the cards disappear, giving me a score of 10-12 per minute. Flashcard drills generally go at about 60 rounds per minute as well.

I wonder if

(a) the "time per round" which I assume is what factors into the total score along with accuracy, should be somehow scaled to some range that is representative. Or is this already done?

(b) narrow bands on the plot really mean what I think, "weakness there" as opposed to wide bands meaning "relatively strong compared to other tests"???

Works well, obviously, it is just the "rounds per minute" thing seems to skew results. IE I don't want to click the right RC after each pair of cards is shown, that is way too slow and also unrealistic. I actually wish that there was a button beyond "36 +/-" so that I could run thru the entire 6d shoe before having to enter a value, which is a bit harder to do.

We were talking about speeds previously, here are some rough numbers for me.

flash-cards. I can do about 1 per second. Moving the mouse seems to be at least 50% of the problem here.

full-table drills. 10-12 per minute, two card hands. running count or TC.

counting drill. 6d shoe in 150 seconds. I can do this faster with real cards, but with real cards should I stumble I can stop a second. One nice option on this test might be a "next" button. IE show me the cards and when I click "next" (I would keep the mouse on it, or maybe use the space bar) the next two cards pop up, which lets me dismiss some cards instantly and slow down if I miss a beat.

deck estimation I simply rip, as I assume most do. Typically I hit 65 rounds a minute, again most of the time spent finding the right button to click with the mouse.

No idea whether those are molasses slow or SR-71 fast times.

GP

[Norm Wattenberger]

Awhile beack I tried to get people interested in coming up with a set of drilling standards. Didn't have any luck. In general, I look at the drill sores in relative terms, not as absolutes. That is, releative to your past performance. But, I see your point in the problem of comparing scores between different classes of drills. The problem here is the large number of options in each of the drills all of which affect the complexity of the drill.

I think what I'll do is to allow the user to tune the scoring algorithms; possibly differently for any CVTest script. This would allow construction of test scripts that could be distributed with more realistic score balances between test segments.

Serious Blackjack Software

[gorilla player]

> Awhile beack I tried to get people
> interested in coming up with a set of
> drilling standards. Didn't have any luck. In
> general, I look at the drill sores in
> relative terms, not as absolutes. That is,
> releative to your past performance. But, I
> see your point in the problem of comparing
> scores between different classes of drills.
> The problem here is the large number of
> options in each of the drills all of which
> affect the complexity of the drill.

> I think what I'll do is to allow the user to
> tune the scoring algorithms; possibly
> differently for any CVTest script. This
> would allow construction of test scripts
> that could be distributed with more
> realistic score balances between test
> segments.

Just keep in mind I'm not complaining.

This is cool stuff.

My original intent was to take each drill, and slowly clamp down the time. IE I started off at 1.25 seconds on the 2-card counting drill, now am at .8 roughly (Can't seem to quite get .8, the slider has some quirky resolution that isn't a problem)... I had planned on continually lowering the times as a way of pushing myself as well as proving that I am getting faster and faster. IE I could not do .8 when I first started, for the 2-card counting drills. Now I can do it with 8 decks with zero errors, which is an improvement for sure. I'm sure that was your intent, and it definitely works...

I am beginning to believe that the full-table drill might be doable at under 2 seconds per round, although I have a long way to go to get there. I can do 5.0 seconds all day long. And I have done 4.0 seconds, multiple times but I make the occasional error there at present...

One thing is for sure, the drills are a lot more fun than counting down a deck. My wife looked over my shoulder last might and asked "what in hell are you doing?" Told her "practicing a counting drill." She said "right, those cards are going by so fast nobody can count them." I had her watch as I kept "guessing" the right button every time. As she walked away shaking her head she mumbled "why aren't we millionaires?"

You and I know it isn't that hard, and I'd bet your speeds make mine look pretty slow. I'm npw curious just how fast I can work my way up to on these things. More as I make progress.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Many will look at those speeds and say they are ridiculous since no dealer deals that quickly. The point, of course, is to make counting, deck estimation and index application second nature so that you don't need to think about playing at the table. The faster you are, the less you will look like a counter. Scanning the table quickly is most important as you can count and backcount while barely ever looking at the table.

Serious Blackjack Software

[Gorilla Player]

> Many will look at those speeds and say they
> are ridiculous since no dealer deals that
> quickly. The point, of course, is to make
> counting, deck estimation and index
> application second nature so that you don't
> need to think about playing at the table.
> The faster you are, the less you will look
> like a counter. Scanning the table quickly
> is most important as you can count and
> backcount while barely ever looking at the
> table.

I agree, which is why I am pushing "me" pretty hard on my late-night drilling. Makes a casino seem like a movie played in ultra-slow-motion, which is good for counting.

Also means that if I make an error, which happens, I have more than enough time to fix it, without getting into a panic or breaking out into a sweat... I think that by far my most common problem is 6 vs 9. In pitched games, when the dealer turns over 21 and everyone tosses their cards in, sometimes that is a pain to figure out, but with reasonable speed, I can count the rest, then glance back to the "problem" and figure out what it is... If I could barely get through the cards before they are gone, that would result in a minor error although admittedly it doesn't happen that often. I believe that of all the counting errors I make, most happen when first base busts. Something happens to make me glance away as he takes his first card, he busts, and before I know it his hand is gone. Not often, but that is where I break most often. I'm getting better at avoiding the distractions to make sure I pick up what happens at first base. The rest are easy.

Seems like the cocktail waitress _always_ comes by right after the initial hands are dealt.

[rich garcia]

>Norm:

While we're on the subject of Drills.
I'm wondering if CVBJ could be set up so that the speed in seconds would be the sole option. Say, I want to countdown a single deck in 30 second. I'd be able to just input that desired time. Currently, there are several perimeters which change the speed like going from Single to Double to Triple. Or the mixed modalities. There's a lot of backing and filling to get the countdown in the proper range. A simple time in seconds option would be very helpful.

Many will look at those speeds and say they
> are ridiculous since no dealer deals that
> quickly. The point, of course, is to make
> counting, deck estimation and index
> application second nature so that you don't
> need to think about playing at the table.
> The faster you are, the less you will look
> like a counter. Scanning the table quickly
> is most important as you can count and
> backcount while barely ever looking at the
> table.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Set the Count Down option. An Alarm Time slider will appear. You can set this to the overall time you desire. The drill won't stop when you hit the time; but you will be buzzed and the time over the limit will be recorded.

Serious Blackjack Software