I am saying I do things with extra information that the sim hasn't been instructed to do and it is based on many things including casino conditions which I would say can't be simmed at least simmed accurately. This means with perfect play I am expected to beat the sim. I have found it is not reasonable to expect a sim to properly reflect casino play. You can make a bunch of assumptions for the sim to make and hope it approximates it but it generally won't and the attempt introduces error to the sim. It is better to sim what can be simmed accurately and just know that if you are doing your work in the casino to get the best bang for your buck you will come in above that. Setting up wonging in 2d would not be that hard but simulating casino conditions for finding available games wouldn't be accurate. It is a bit more complex than linear wonging depending upon the 2 counts used and the game being attacked.
The wonging applications in 2d with 2 counts will vary by the game you are attacking but it is very complicated as the system shows nonlinear relationships and a small change in cards removed at the same bet size may have little hope of changing advantage or a large change in advantage. In theory it can all be programmed but the availability of other tables, table crowding and other factors you deal with on the fly in the casino environment would just add errors into the sim if you make assumptions on what they would be. The one guarantee is the assumptions would usually be wrong. I prefer an exact sim that I know will have to be adjusted by varying conditions. I use ways to approximate what the ideal and impossible accurate sim would be but I usually just happy to come in above the sim results that have no assumptions to introduce error to the results versus the actual conditions you face.
I know statements like this will drive programmers crazy but I believe they are accurate. Programmers like to believe any conditions can be simmed but they can sim assumptions but assumptions are almost always flawed. Is it better to have a sim result you know is flawed and may or may not come close to the conditions you actually face. Or is it better to have an exact sim and understand the conditions you will face and what you do are not exactly what was simmed and your results with perfect play will reflect the difference.
Here is what I mean. You run a sim for a certain number of players or players bouncing in and out, a certain pen, perhaps include game speed assumptions, you make assumptions about table availability when you wong out, you set a wonging strategy that will not be able to process or reflect all the information, the count and beyond, that affect the efficacy of wonging, etc. The list could go on and on. Then you go to the casino and find varying pen, varying crowding, game speed issues, heat issues that need to be factored in, tolerance issues that need to be factored in, etc. The list could go on and on. I like a conservative sim so if I decide a game is worth it I will come in at or over the sim results. Given the differences between sim and actual conditions and the more assumptions you make in the sim the further you could get from the actual. I would suggest that coming in under sim results by 20% or more probably reflects the inaccuracy of the sim assumptions more than indicating you are making a boatload of errors. Perhaps those that do not seek perfection just make lots of errors. Like others I see the world as a reflection of myself and generally think few errors are made by AP's. I guess the fact that some AP's are so certain that high error rates occur is just an indication of what they experience themselves from their own play more than what others do.
Bookmarks