Parker: BJRM2000 oddity

[Parker]

I was crunching some numbers with BJRM2000 to answer a question on the free pages when I encountered something I can't figure out. The question involved Reno-style double deck, and I wanted to figure some SCORE's.

I punch in Hi-lo for the count, H17 for the rules (which as I understand it, assumes DOA and no DAS), 78/104 (75%) for pen, and a $10K bankroll. I select "Opt 1 to max bet" with a 1-8 spread, and hit "Calculate optimum bet." I get a SCORE of 65.93, with an average bet of $22.57.

This is in line with what I expected, with the good pen overcoming the so-so rules to give an okay SCORE.

However, some Reno double deck games are D10-11 only, so I wanted to see what effect that would have.

I changed the rules to H17D10 and left everything else (pen, spread, BR, etc) the same.

I was expecting a drop in SCORE, and was quite surprised when I got a SCORE of 75.34 with an average bet of 24.10.

What am I doing wrong?

Or should I start seeking out D10 games? :-)

[Don Schlesinger]

> What am I doing wrong?

> Or should I start seeking out D10 games? :-)

I got the same results. Something is wrong. Note that the unit size is actually larger for the D10 game, and that isn't impossible, since doubling more increases variance. But, it makes no sense to worsen the rules and get better results.

John, are you there??

Don

[John Auston]

I don't think there is even supposed to be a 2-dk H17 D10 choice.

I thought I only did D10 for 1 dk.

Perhaps those hi-lo 2 dk sims got mis-labeled from something else.

It's been a very long time since I put all that stuff together. I'll have to look into it when I get a chance.

John

> I got the same results. Something is wrong.
> Note that the unit size is actually larger
> for the D10 game, and that isn't impossible,
> since doubling more increases variance. But,
> it makes no sense to worsen the rules and
> get better results.

> John, are you there??

> Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> I don't think there is even supposed to be a
> 2-dk H17 D10 choice.

> I thought I only did D10 for 1 dk.

> Perhaps those hi-lo 2 dk sims got
> mis-labeled from something else.

There are none in the book, so I think you're right; it's mislabeled. I don't think we did h17 d10 for DD.

Don

[John Auston]

> There are none in the book, so I think
> you're right; it's mislabeled. I don't think
> we did h17 d10 for DD.

Maybe we could make a contest out of this. Find the sim conditions that it should have been for. :-)

John

[Parker]

> Maybe we could make a contest out of this.
> Find the sim conditions that it should have
> been for. :-)

> John

I would imagine that it would be for single deck, since this sort of game is common in Reno, and that would explain the higher SCORE than the DOA double deck game.

It was my understanding that BJRM would only display the sims available for given conditions, that is, when I select double deck, only the available conditions for the stored sims would be shown in the drop-down menus.

So I guess this means that this particular sim was, as you say, mislabeled.

[John Auston]

> So I guess this means that this particular
> sim was, as you say, mislabeled.

The only H17D10 sim, in the hilo 2 deck set, is for 78 cards of penetration.

It looks to me like it might actually be for an H17DASD10 rule set.

Check its SCORE against the 78 card H17DAS. It is slightly less, as one would expect.

That said, I cannot think why I would have done that one, but I must have. Sorry for any confusion it has caused. I'll remove it from future versions.

John Auston