Norm Wattenberger: OH NO another BJ site

[Norm Wattenberger]

Over the years I've been adding online calculators to various sites and ended up with a disorganized mess with calculators in three places, bjstats.com, qfit.com and CVCX Online. So, I've gathered them together in what I hope is a more organized fashion at a new site www.card-counting.com. There are 17 calculators, 50,000 graphs and hundreds of thousands of tables of Blackjack data nearly all free. If you have any trouble getting to the site, the DNS info may not yet have propagated to your ISP.

www.card-counting.com

[Magician]

> Over the years I've been adding online calculators to
> various sites and ended up with a disorganized mess
> with calculators in three places, bjstats.com,
> qfit.com and CVCX Online. So, I've gathered them
> together in what I hope is a more organized fashion at
> a new site www.card-counting.com. There are 17
> calculators, 50,000 graphs and hundreds of thousands
> of tables of Blackjack data nearly all free.

I was actually thinking just the other day that it would be great if all that stuff was consolidated in one place. I see my powers of telepathy are growing stronger. :-)

Some of the studies you've posted on this site are very useful too. Have you considered creating an index of these?

> If you
> have any trouble getting to the site, the DNS info may
> not yet have propagated to your ISP.

For the less technically-inclined, that means "try again in a day or two." :-)

P.S. One little thing, the link to "CVCX Pages" in http://www.card-counting.com/blackjack-data.htm is broken.

[Sun Runner]

Thanks again Norm.

I was surpried that adding a 'six card charlie' to the following rule set (DA2, DAS, H17, RSA, 6D) brought the EHE down to less than .2%. Am I missing something?

Also, I've asked you this before, but now I'm serious, if I want to find how differing BS index changes (say doubling 11 v A, at 0, 2, or 4) would effect SCORE, EV, etc .. would CVCX do this?

Again, really nice work.

[Norm Wattenberger]

The CVCX calculators did not work under Netscape & FireFox. I have changed them to make up for the shortcomings of Mozilla based browsers

[Norm Wattenberger]

> I was surpried that adding a 'six card charlie' to the
> following rule set (DA2, DAS, H17, RSA, 6D) brought
> the EHE down to less than .2%. Am I missing something?

Hmm. That doesn't sound right. I didn'r calculate any of these numbers but got them from various books. I think I'll remove 6-card Charlie until I verify it myself.

> Also, I've asked you this before, but now I'm serious,
> if I want to find how differing BS index changes (say
> doubling 11 v A, at 0, 2, or 4) would effect SCORE,
> EV, etc .. would CVCX do this?

Well yes but you would have to run a huge number of hands to look at the effect of one index.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> I was actually thinking just the other day that it
> would be great if all that stuff was consolidated in
> one place. I see my powers of telepathy are growing
> stronger. :-)

I wondered whose voice that was.

> Some of the studies you've posted on this site are
> very useful too. Have you considered creating an index
> of these?

I keep meaning to. Too lazy.

> P.S. One little thing, the link to "CVCX
> Pages" in
> http://www.card-counting.com/blackjack-data.htm is
> broken.

Opps. Actually hadn't intended to have any links.

[Parker]

> The CVCX calculators did not work under Netscape &
> FireFox. I have changed them to make up for the
> shortcomings of Mozilla based browsers

"Shortcomings," indeed.

They also seem to work just fine using Opera.

I figured you'd want to know. :-)

[Norm Wattenberger]

But it drives developers nuts. CVBJ V4 contains the Gamemaster tutorial and calls your browser to display it. I racked my brain trying to figure out why some users got oddball errors. Finally I realized they were using FireFox. Sure enough I had a problem calling Mosaic browsers. That's life

[Norm Wattenberger]

Wizardofodds agrees with the number I was using. Still doesn't sound right though Guess I'll have to sim it.

> Hmm. That doesn't sound right. I didn'r calculate any
> of these numbers but got them from various books. I
> think I'll remove 6-card Charlie until I verify it
> myself.

> Well yes but you would have to run a huge number of
> hands to look at the effect of one index.

[MGP]

I just set the EV for all 6-Card or more hands to 1 and still adjusted for BJ EV since I'm assuming OBO and you can't have a 6-card hand vs BJ:

6D DOA DAS H17 RSA
Strategy Net EV -6CC +6CC
Total Dependent Strategy -0.55% -0.47%
2 Card Dependent Strategy -0.55% -0.47%
Composition Dependent -0.55% -0.41%

[Norm Wattenberger]

I've been meaning to post on the diff between top-deck BS, CCE BS, CD BS, etc.

[Sun Runner]

> 6D DOA DAS H17 RSA
> Strategy Net EV -6CC +6CC
> Total Dependent Strategy -0.55% -0.47%
> 2 Card Dependent Strategy -0.55% -0.47%
> Composition Dependent -0.55% -0.41%

You have found a 6CC to be worth 0.08%, 0.08%, and 0.14% respectively. Blackbelt in Blackjack v.3 called it 0.10%. Norm had it dialed in around .16% I think.

BTW .. I'm not sure what Norm's new website BS Calculator used (I'd bet it wasn't CD), but I can't get any combo of selections to agree with your -0.47%.

It tells me again that in a sport --who's foundation is purportedly built on 1+1=2, where the gurus find solace in reporting results to 4 decimal places over the long run while I generally play in the short run --that 1 decimal place is probably sufficent and probably most representative of the reliability.

It tells me that the energy Mr Salomon spends in exactitude at the table is probably of marginal benefit for most of us.

And it reaffrims to me the cornerstone of this game is a solid count system, good pen, good rules, good conditions, and the ability to bet big when called for.

Everything else is just extra decimal points.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I believe ProBJ shows it as .16% also. I actually used .16% for 8 decks and .06% for one deck with a sliding scale. The biggest problem in such calculators is that everyone uses 'top of the deck' numbers (no cut card effect) for consistency. Unfortunately, no one actually plays that way except on online casinos.

> You have found a 6CC to be worth 0.08%, 0.08%, and
> 0.14% respectively. Blackbelt in Blackjack v.3 called
> it 0.10%. Norm had it dialed in around .16% I think.

> BTW .. I'm not sure what Norm's new website BS
> Calculator used (I'd bet it wasn't CD), but I can't
> get any combo of selections to agree with your -0.47%.

> It tells me again that in a sport --who's foundation
> is purportedly built on 1+1=2, where the gurus find
> solace in reporting results to 4 decimal places over
> the long run while I generally play in the short run
> --that 1 decimal place is probably sufficent and
> probably most representative of the reliability.

> It tells me that the energy Mr Salomon spends in
> exactitude at the table is probably of marginal
> benefit for most of us.

> And it reaffrims to me the cornerstone of this game is
> a solid count system, good pen, good rules, good
> conditions, and the ability to bet big when called
> for.

> Everything else is just extra decimal points.