Aruuba: Advantage percents for SP21

[Katarina Walker]

That's why they are the same. I should have put that in. I will now.

>the methodology
> involved in creating a "blended penetration"
> advantage chart.
The methodology is: you run a sim (in my case, 10 billion hands) where the pen of each shoe is randomly selected to be between 75 and 90% pen, inclusive, rounded to the nearest card.

[Aruuba]

> That's why they are the same. I should have put that
> in. I will now.
> The methodology is: you run a sim (in my case, 10
> billion hands) where the pen of each shoe is randomly
> selected to be between 75 and 90% pen, inclusive,
> rounded to the nearest card.
Thanks for answering to that - it had just made me curious.

Just so I have it straight now I guess you're saying all the Appendix B charts are for a blended penetration level? Or at least the US SP21 ones - don't care as much about Pontoon at the moment - how you keep track of so many games is beyond me lol.

In other words, would it be true that your Benchmark game defined on page 80 that specifies the 81.25% penetration is actually based on the blended levels, in other words some kind of number meant to perhaps just represent an average of some kind or does it mean that in the body of your book win rates etc actually are all based on that specific penetration level and therefore the Appendix B charts actually are maybe a little different in that they would not exactly represent your benchmark game.

Does this also mean your Appendix A index charts are also based on a blended pen-level analysis even though it says they apply to a "standard" game?

Probably doesn't make much difference anyway but should the benchmark game pen level on page 80 actually be some avg maybe you could just say there it's based on a blended level.

Just a suggestion and I thank you for your responses.

[Robbie]

> Were you starting your Running Count at -32 at the top
> of the shoe?

No, I wasn't with 8 decks what should I have started with?

Kat said start with -4 X 2 X (# of decks) which is 8, which would equal 64!

Robbie

[Aruuba]

> Kat said start with -4 X 2 X (# of decks) which is 8,
> which would equal 64!
> Robbie

Where does she say that? I think you start with -4 times number of decks since the 4 10's that are missing would represent a -4 RC in regular BJ Hi-Lo. So, in effect a TC of -4 is neutral for SP21 comparable to a TC of 0 in reg BJ.

[21forme]

> Where does she say that? I think you start with -4
> times number of decks since the 4 10's that are
> missing would represent a -4 RC in regular BJ Hi-Lo.
> So, in effect a TC of -4 is neutral for SP21
> comparable to a TC of 0 in reg BJ.

That's correct. There was a thread that mentioned using the Revere count where you're dividing by half-decks. In that case it would be (-4 x 2 x # decks) / # half-decks remaining.