MJ: CVCX SE

[MJ]

> If the SCORE is zero, the SE is an infinite % of SCORE
> with any finite number of rounds. It makes no sense to
> talk about the ratio between SCORE and SE of SCORE.
> Particularly if you are inputting circumstances that
> are highly unusual.

The 40 to 1 spread I input was for play all and I accidentally left it the same for backcounting. Disregard the the inquiry regarding the 40 to 1 spread as it is unrealistic.

But the SE's I mentioned for the 10 to 1 spread are fair game as this spread is not atypical. Is the ratio of SE SCORE to that of SCORE ever meaningful? In this case it is 2.9%.

Also, the problem I mentioned when adjusting the minimum bet is there even for a 8 to 1 spread.

> You are looking at extreme cases. When backcounting
> with a Spread of 40 and a hi TC; expect a high SE. If
> your purpose is to 'break' the software by testing
> weird cases - that's fine and I am happy to look at
> what happens with wild inputs.

Not concerned with extreme cases. See above.

> A good rule of thumb is that rules of
> thumb only work well for normal situations.

Ok that is what I am interested in. For example, wonging in at TC of +2 and spreading from 1 to 8 or 1 to 10 while playing 2 hands.

I am seeking some guidelines for interpreting the validity of my results when using SE. Can SE give me any idea regarding the probable range of where the theoretical WR lies?

MJ

[MJ]

Now, just click on Manually Adj Min Bet and increase it to $126. Watch what happens to the Custom SE for WR!!! Even if you drop it back down to $125, it still remains inflated. The only way to reduce it is to lower the spread or turn off the Adj Min Bet feature.

On another note, why does the software spread 1 to 5 when I specify 1 to 8? The minimum bet is $200 and max is $1000. The software says the min is $125 but it doesn't bet that as the minimum!

Also, why is SCORE higher for the Custom and not Optimal? I thought Optimal is the Optimal SCORE. Apparently that is not always the case.

MJ

CVCX Image

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Now, just click on Manually Adj Min Bet and increase
> it to $126. Watch what happens to the Custom SE for
> WR!!! Even if you drop it back down to $125, it still
> remains inflated. The only way to reduce it is to
> lower the spread or turn off the Adj Min Bet feature.

CVCX is trying to create an optimal betting ramp which matches all of your input. It has to balance between the demands of a set RoR and set min chip size. It is not possible to create a ramp that results in exactly the requested RoR while requiring the requested min chip size. So it makes compromises. Now when you force a new min bet that is not a multiple of the min chip size; it is getting contradictory demands. It also may find that the change forces a substantially different min bet in order to remain reasonably close to the requested RoR. So there is a large swing in min bet size that occurs at some point in penetration and/or spread and/or bankroll, etc. That is, the curves are no longer smooth but become ratcheted. If you reduce the min chip size to 1, the ratcheting will go away.

> On another note, why does the software spread 1 to 5
> when I specify 1 to 8? The minimum bet is $200 and max
> is $1000. The software says the min is $125 but it
> doesn't bet that as the minimum!

When backcounting, the software found a higher SCORE. When you start removing hands with little or no advantage, it just doesn't make sense to ever lower your bet to the theoretic minimum.

> Also, why is SCORE higher for the Custom and not
> Optimal? I thought Optimal is the Optimal SCORE.
> Apparently that is not always the case.

Look at the RoRs. The min chip size you set forces the software to vary from requested RoR. The ratchets in the curves for optimal and betting are at different points. You picked a point where RoR was high for one and low for the other.

All of this goes away with a min chip size of 1. The problem in a casino is you can't bet oddball bets. So CVCX does what it can to balance between reasonable bets and optimal bets given the inputted specs. It actually doesn't affect the SCORE a great deal. But win rate and RoR bounce around as you change settings.

[MJ]

> CVCX is trying to create an optimal betting ramp which
> matches all of your input. It has to balance between
> the demands of a set RoR and set min chip size. It is
> not possible to create a ramp that results in exactly
> the requested RoR while requiring the requested min
> chip size. So it makes compromises. Now when you force
> a new min bet that is not a multiple of the min chip
> size; it is getting contradictory demands. It also may
> find that the change forces a substantially different
> min bet in order to remain reasonably close to the
> requested RoR. So there is a large swing in min bet
> size that occurs at some point in penetration and/or
> spread and/or bankroll, etc. That is, the curves are
> no longer smooth but become ratcheted. If you reduce
> the min chip size to 1, the ratcheting will go away.

I still don't see why that should affect the CUSTOM SE for WR. If anything, it should affect optimal SE WR. We aren't even making any changes in the CUSTOM schedule, so why should SE for custom WR be affected? Did you notice how it jumped from $5.69 to $18 when Manually Adj Min Bet is set to $126? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was explaining. Double check CUSTOM SE WR.

MJ

[Norm Wattenberger]

I don't have your sim.

[Norm Wattenberger]

When you click on "Manually adjust min bet," you will see that the Risk of Ruin/Kelly fields disappear. This is because you are overriding the specification of a desired risk by forcing a minimum bet (and by inference max bet since you specified spread.) It is simply not possible to create a ramp for a specified RoR when you are forcing the min bet and max bet. You can specify a desired risk or a desired min bet - but not both. CVCX then attempts to calculate the most optimal bet ramp given the min bet and spread. So, the RoR changes significantly as does the ramp.

CVCX tries to create the best ramp given the input. But since you can input any of the relevant variables; it has to deal with conflicts. You can't specify that a drawing program draws a circle with a circumference three times the radius. At least not without folding space.

[MJ]

Ok, I took one last stab at trying to explain this. Follow link below. Read it very carefully. Your arguments make sense if the SE for OPTIMAL WR skyrockets, but NOT SE for CUSTOM. I may be wrong here, but I doubt it.

MJ

Charts

[Magician]

> Ok, I took one last stab at trying to explain this.
> Follow link below. Read it very carefully. Your
> arguments make sense if the SE for OPTIMAL WR
> skyrockets, but NOT SE for CUSTOM. I may be wrong
> here, but I doubt it.

How can you have a minimum bet of $126 if your minimum chip size $25?

GIGO

[MJ]

[Norm Wattenberger]

MJ, you are posting this stuff on four different forums and two pages on this forum. I cannot follow this. Stick to one forum.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> I am seeking some guidelines for interpreting the
> validity of my results when using SE. Can SE give me
> any idea regarding the probable range of where the
> theoretical WR lies?

Yes, the probable range is WR - SE of WR to WR + SE of WR.

No ratios involved.