Would you play this??

[dalmatian]

Due to restrictions on playing without a players card, I am limited to this:

1 spot with spread of 1x100-1x1000$

S17 5/6 game (no surr, DAS, RSA)

However, they have a lot of tables and I can optimally depart @ -1 true and just go to another open table about to begin.

I can sim the play without optimally departing and with the following bet spread I get:

1x100 @ neutral and negative counts

1x500 @ +1 true

Max out 1x1000 @ +2 true

Win Rate: 325$/hr

ROR 0.1% on my bank

N0 = 280 hours (@100 rounds per hour)

My question is, how much will optimally departing help me here to improve win rate and reduce N0? I understand the lag factor (how quickly you can find a new fresh open table) but like i said they have many many tables open usually waiting for a new player. If the lag is particularly bad (a lot of customers, hard to find open tables) I can wait till -2 or even -3 true to optimally depart. Thanks for any feedback.

Also, is there a way to calculate optimal departure effects on CVCX?


Thanks a lot for any advice

Dalmatian

[Freightman]

I often comment on easily beating sims with various strategies including departure from optimal ramping. Though true, it doesn’t preclude me from having my ass handed to me from time to time - which happened recently.

Now, my loss was in the 4K area with my ramping on the the lower spectrum due to my philosophies on QTC. ROR in the .001 area.
1. Compare your .1 ROR to my .001 ROR.
2. Despite the still low ROR, I have a feeling that variance is through the roof.

Summary - possibility of total crash and burn with total decimation in 1 session. Kelly is there for a reason. Also, for shits and giggles, when next to my office, I’ll sim your ROR numbers using a bank of 200k, 300k, and 400k. Second last but not least, I’ve also commented on your subtlety of ramp escalation compared to store back offs. Last, but not least - too much risk for too little reward - A $1000 max bet needs to generate more than a high variance $325 per hour.

[Freightman]

I also failed to add in the comment regarding travelling expenses and their effect on your ROR calculations.

[Goatlife]

Why wong out at all, will bring more tolerance if you stay out. Set wong out of -3 . Should be able to do this on cvcx

[dalmatian]

Why wong out at all, will bring more tolerance if you stay out. Set wong out of -3 . Should be able to do this on cvcx

i just wanted smallcap to cum out of the woodwork with another post. never fails. love you man. lets rent some TC, a truck, and do a cross country trip

[Goatlife]

Never in a million years would I do Thst. I hope hard rock Hollywood arrests you for tresspass

[Cacarulo]

Due to restrictions on playing without a players card, I am limited to this:

1 spot with spread of 1x100-1x1000$

S17 5/6 game (no surr, DAS, RSA)

However, they have a lot of tables and I can optimally depart @ -1 true and just go to another open table about to begin.

I can sim the play without optimally departing and with the following bet spread I get:

1x100 @ neutral and negative counts

1x500 @ +1 true

Max out 1x1000 @ +2 true

Win Rate: 325$/hr

ROR 0.1% on my bank

N0 = 280 hours (@100 rounds per hour)

My question is, how much will optimally departing help me here to improve win rate and reduce N0? I understand the lag factor (how quickly you can find a new fresh open table) but like i said they have many many tables open usually waiting for a new player. If the lag is particularly bad (a lot of customers, hard to find open tables) I can wait till -2 or even -3 true to optimally depart. Thanks for any feedback.

Also, is there a way to calculate optimal departure effects on CVCX?


Thanks a lot for any advice

Dalmatian

Some comments. To me, it seems like a game with very good rules (S17, DAS, 5/6, and RSA) despite the allowed 1-10 spread.
The fact that there are many tables is another positive factor since it allows you to jump from table to table, which is ideal for avoiding negative TCs.
Although you mention a betting scheme and a ROR, you do not mention which counting system you are using or what your bankroll is.
Evidently, for a 0.1% ROR, I assume it must be very large. On the other hand, the betting scheme does not seem optimal, although if the bankroll
is large enough, it hardly matters. In this case, you could bet $1000 on all advantageous counts and $100 on those where you do not have an advantage.
Your win rate would be higher.
The N0 is usually related to optimal play. If so, an N0 of 28000 as you mention would correspond to a SCORE of 35.71 (1/28000*1000000). This is for a single hand.

Sincerely,
Cac

[dalmatian]

Some comments. To me, it seems like a game with very good rules (S17, DAS, 5/6, and RSA) despite the allowed 1-10 spread.
The fact that there are many tables is another positive factor since it allows you to jump from table to table, which is ideal for avoiding negative TCs.
Although you mention a betting scheme and a ROR, you do not mention which counting system you are using or what your bankroll is.
Evidently, for a 0.1% ROR, I assume it must be very large. On the other hand, the betting scheme does not seem optimal, although if the bankroll
is large enough, it hardly matters. In this case, you could bet $1000 on all advantageous counts and $100 on those where you do not have an advantage.
Your win rate would be higher.
The N0 is usually related to optimal play. If so, an N0 of 28000 as you mention would correspond to a SCORE of 35.71 (1/28000*1000000). This is for a single hand.

Sincerely,
Cac

Thanks Cacarulo! I simmed with the more practical hi-low full indices. I have used halves in the past, but find my brain is fried relatively quickly. I also didn't mention that this place deals very VERY fast, quick is another good thing.

I remember reading somewhere in Blackjack Attack (Im too ADHD to find exactly where) that optimal departure at -1 true with no lag can increase your win rate by about 50%. So my win rate could theoretically be around 450$/hr right?

[dalmatian]

Never in a million years would I do Thst. I hope hard rock Hollywood arrests you for tresspass

How is this NOT your dream? you can have the large thick TC and i get the cute little TC. We wont even be stepping on each others toes. Plus i know you LOVE blackjack haha.

[Cacarulo]

Thanks Cacarulo! I simmed with the more practical hi-low full indices. I have used halves in the past, but find my brain is fried relatively quickly. I also didn't mention that this place deals very VERY fast, quick is another good thing.

Well, between Hi-Lo and Halves you have a much less stressful alternative than Halves and more powerful: CAC2 ;-)

I remember reading somewhere in Blackjack Attack (Im too ADHD to find exactly where) that optimal departure at -1 true with no lag can increase your win rate by about 50%. So my win rate could theoretically be around 450$/hr right?

In theory, if there were always a table with a dealer ready to deal and with empty seats available, it would be possible. However, the reality is that there's always some waiting involved. One can always reduce that waiting time by playing as part of a team.

Sincerely,
Cac

[dalmatian]

Well, between Hi-Lo and Halves you have a much less stressful alternative than Halves and more powerful: CAC2 ;-)

How much simpler than Halves ??

I found hi low stupid simple. But sadly halves is simply not viable to me under all conditions (fast dealing or long session).

I might consider CAC2 if and only if it is comparable to Hi Low. I tried zen once and found it notably more difficult than Hi low, though not as difficult as Halves. What I didn't like about Zen was doubling everything (the running counts were larger and the indices were larger than they would be in high low).

Thanks for any feedback.

[Cacarulo]

How much simpler than Halves ??

I found hi low stupid simple. But sadly halves is simply not viable to me under all conditions (fast dealing or long session).

I might consider CAC2 if and only if it is comparable to Hi Low. I tried zen once and found it notably more difficult than Hi low, though not as difficult as Halves. What I didn't like about Zen was doubling everything (the running counts were larger and the indices were larger than they would be in high low).

Thanks for any feedback.

Well, it's simpler than Halves, which is level 3 and a bit more difficult than Hi-Lo.
This will always happen when you move from a level 1 to a level 2. On the other hand, it's normal that if the RC is divided by whole decks,
when moving from a level 1 to a level 2, the indices will double. It's possible to avoid this, but then you should divide by half-decks, as with RPC.
The problem now is that dividing by half-decks slightly worsens the SCORE. The decision about what is more convenient depends on each person.

Sincerely,
Cac

[awesomeblue7]

I'm just a beginning recreational player and member of Blackjack Apprenticeship for a year and a half now. Have had lesser swings in 110 hours of playing low stakes with CAC2 as opposed using same or similar spread with Hi-Lo. I also still notice myself making mistakes when trying to push on quick for RPH. Knowing mistakes are made and still performing on par with Hi-Lo EV gives me confidence that this system is probably the better choice.
As far as counting goes, been able to maintain counting for long sessions and quick rounds with CAC2. Was thinking about a short break to bolster some weaknesses such as deck approximation, canceling 3-5 cards at once and learning the supplemental strategies presented in CAC2 Enh package