CVCX Question

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#1
I don't know if it's theory or math but I;d like to undersatnad better what QFIT's software is telling me when I look at it.

Case in point

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=14612

for the questions I asked there relating to the first pic LG posted.

For starters, what is the $win rate per physical round played?

I had a sheet on it where i did get to the $SD/hr, as I said there, but I just couldn't get to the $win/rate/physical round.

My cat deleted the sheet so I don't have it anymore lmao.

Nobody replied to my questions there so maybe nobody will reply to my questions here either lol. That's OK too lol.

Am I at least correct in assuming his $win rate/hd, maybe round, is an average over hands seen and nothing at all to do with a $win rate per physical hand or round?

While the SD/hd actually is per physical hand or round played?

And N0 is "hourly" not physical hands played? (Pretty sure about that one lol.)

It's just been bugging me - I usually can eventually get closer to what he says but this time something wasn't working for me lol.

Hoping to maybe hear from the Man himself lol.

Either way, nice idea for a new forum.
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#2
Kasi said:
...

My cat deleted the sheet so I don't have it anymore lmao.
.....
And N0 is "hourly" not physical hands played? (Pretty sure about that one lol.)

....
i blame my cat for a lot of stuff too.:joker::whip:

anyway i'm just curious as to what you mean by the term "hourly" hands played?
what does "hourly" hands played mean?
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#3
sagefr0g said:
anyway i'm just curious as to what you mean by the term "hourly" hands played?what does "hourly" hands played mean?
Well, that's my dilemma in a nutshell lol.

In Lonesome Gambler's pic he has "80" in "hds/hr".

In same pic he has back-counting checked and it says "52.6%" after it.

It says "$50.68" SD/hd. It says "$328.80" (can't see pic now) per "hr".

The only way I can get to that is assume he physically plays 52.6% of every 80 hds "seen".

So he would "see" 80 hds/hr but physically play only 80*.526=42.08 hds/"hr" becasue he is back-counting. Sq rt of 42.06 = 6.487 and 6.487 * $50.68 SD per hand "physically" played = $328.76 per hr.

Close enough maybe. $SD/hd apparently may mean per physical hand played.

N0= 15930 "hands". Does that mean 15930 "physical" hands played or 15930 hands "seen"? I believe it means it means 15930 hands "seen". In which case, it means 15930*.526 "physical" hands, or 8379 "physical" hands have been played.

In which case sqrt of 8379=91.537 and 91.537 * $50.68SD per "physical" rd=$4639 of 1 SD.

Now here's the kicker lol.

15930hds/80hds/hr=199.125/hds/hr might mean 199.125 "physical" hds/hr were played. And the "$23.30" EV/"hr" * 199.125 = $4639 of EV.

So, great. We have N0 where the $SD=the $EV.

Except the $EV is NOT based on "physical" hands played since, apparently, it's based on playing "every" hand "seen" when it seems from the other crap, everything else is based on "physical" hds played assuming 80 hds "seen" per hr.

I don't get the apparent inconsistency of win rate per "hand" being some kind of average based on on actually playing 80 physical hds/hr maybe and everything else that is expressed per "hand" being a physical hand played based on only playing 52.6% of all hands "seen", as best as I can make of it all lol.

I think I'd love to know the $win rate per physical hand played in Lonesome Gambler's pic lol.

I'm still holding out the thinnest of hope QFIT may respond to LG's pic of that sim lol.

Don't worry about it much - I may be the only person that this actually bothers :grin:

Still, I think it may have bearing for a guy who runs that sim and wants to figure out stuff 100 "hours" later.

Especially if some of those hours may have been at 80/hr or 100/hr. "Seen" or "actually played".
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#5
For win rate per physical hand played, divide the win rate per hand by the backcount % - .526 in this case.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#6
QFIT said:
For win rate per physical hand played, divide the win rate per hand by the backcount % - .526 in this case.
Thank you QFIT. And I very much thank you for your response and apologize it took me so long to get back down here.

It just didn't seem possible for the $win rate, as expressed in the sim, to be per physical hand played.

Why do you choose to express $win rate this way in your software yet express SD differently? I can live with the N0 being hands "seen" vs hands "played" for some reason lol.

Maybe my problem is all I've ever known or cared about is how many physical rounds I have played. Sure, I also may have known how long it took me to play those rounds but so what.

Like, maybe, if I didn't know better, and, I'm not sure I even do, that's for sure, I might take that sim and think after seeing say 160 hands in 3 hours instead of 240 hands, for whatever reason, just knowing I only happened to play 160 hands in those 3 hours compared to knowing I should have played 240 hands in those 3 hours according to the sim, I'd maybe think my EV is...

OK, I can't see the sim, don't have a sheet, but you see what I mean maybe?

Would this also mean the win rate, expressed as a %, should also be divided by the back-counting percentage if I wanted to know that per physical hand?

The avg $ bet per round is per physical round isn't it? But the win% rate is goofy to me.

Sorry - I'm probably replying prematurely. I'll redo my sheet so I have a clue what I'm talking about lol.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#7
People disagree on how they'd like to see results for backcounting. Some like to see win rate per hour assuming you immediately find a new table. Some assume that you will stand behind the same table and wait. Neither is realistic.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#8
QFIT said:
People disagree on how they'd like to see results for backcounting. Some like to see win rate per hour assuming you immediately find a new table. Some assume that you will stand behind the same table and wait. Neither is realistic.
Thank you QFIT.

As unrealistic as either assumption may be, I guess I had thought "back-counting" kind of meant assuming one could actually sit at a table and play any hand one chose to play. Like, if no mid-shoe entry was a rule, then pure "back-counting" would be impossible.

I don't see any difference between the 2 things you suggest. Except "reality" intervening.

All the more reason, why, just me perhaps, would simply prefer to just count/estimate the rounds I actually played.

As opposed to maybe what I call "wonging" wherein one begins a shoe and is forced to exit at some point and either wait for the next shoe or join another table at the top of a shoe because NME is a rule.

Anyway, in the sim in question, are you saying the win rate per physical round is 0.29/.526=$0.55 per round?

Also, the other things I think I am unclear about are, does $29.27 avg bet mean TOTAL $'s wagered per round, a round defined as includeing 2 spread hands when played or does it just mean the initial bet for 1 hand but would be double that if spreading to 2 hands? Or is it an avg bet taking into account the "hourly" stuff?

Also, rightly or wrongly, I am used to defining "w/l%" as win rate per round/avg bet /rd. Would this mean the win rate per round is $0.55/29.27=1.89%? How do you define it in this scenario?

No big deal. I usually can get pretty close to your stuff (or pictures of it lol) and enjoy doing it for my own purposes, (it's alot easier when I already know the answer I have to get to lol) but, for some reason, obviously it's me lol, I can't completely figure this one out to save my life lol.
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#9
Kasi said:
....
Also, the other things I think I am unclear about are, does $29.27 avg bet mean TOTAL $'s wagered per round, a round defined as includeing 2 spread hands when played or does it just mean the initial bet for 1 hand but would be double that if spreading to 2 hands? Or is it an avg bet taking into account the "hourly" stuff?

...
i could answer this one but i'd be quoting cvcx's help section and just recently having read QFIT's copyright statement that came with my cvcx upgrade, i'm not sure if i'm allowed to do that or not.:confused::rolleyes::whip:

QFIT, am i allowed to explain the avg bet by quoting from cvcx help?:angel:
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#10
sagefr0g said:
i could answer this one but i'd be quoting cvcx's help section and just recently having read QFIT's copyright statement that came with my cvcx upgrade, i'm not sure if i'm allowed to do that or not.:confused::rolleyes::whip:

QFIT, am i allowed to explain the avg bet by quoting from cvcx help?:angel:
Yes, of course.
 

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#11
Kasi said:
...
Also, the other things I think I am unclear about are, does $29.27 avg bet mean TOTAL $'s wagered per round, a round defined as includeing 2 spread hands when played or does it just mean the initial bet for 1 hand but would be double that if spreading to 2 hands? Or is it an avg bet taking into account the "hourly" stuff?
..
"Average Bet - Average initial bet. This is the bet before double downs, splits, surrender or insurance."

http://www.qfit.com/downloads.htm
like i think you can download the demo, then see the help section, maybe.
that might answer more of these questions.
probably then still have questions though, i know i'm learning by your questions.:)
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#12
sagefr0g said:
"Average Bet - Average initial bet. This is the bet before double downs, splits, surrender or insurance."

http://www.qfit.com/downloads.htm
like i think you can download the demo, then see the help section, maybe.
that might answer more of these questions.
probably then still have questions though, i know i'm learning by your questions.:)
As always, thank you Wise One.

So, how would you interpret that definition when either back-counting or spreading to multiple hands per round or "hand"?

If just back-counting, without spreading say, does it mean an avg initial bet per round or "hand"? Not that it would matter since "round " and "hand" would be the same.

If just back-counting, without spreading, does it mean avg initial bet per physical round played or some watered-down avg bet taking into account the 80 hands "seen/hr" just as the avg win per hand of $0.29 is some watered-down avg of $win /hd based on 80/hds/hr in this case.

If back-counting and spreading, does it represent the avg initial $bet including both "hands" (1 round) and/or is it an avg bet per physical "round" (or "hand") played?

From past experience it always seemed to me the avg bet, when back-counting, was a physical avg bet. But, you know, I could have been wrong about that too all this time lol.

All I know most of the time, even in this case too, I get the same avg initial $bet and I get the same win rate % too.

What I would personally want to know is what the heck to expect after having played 500 physical rounds according to this sim and I don't give a darn how many hours it may have took me lol.

It's bad enough, to me, N0 is always seemingly expressed as number of hands required in "hours" doing whatever, back-counting or not, when the reality is N0 is achieved in many fewer physical rounds when not playing all hands "seen". I accept that as some kind of software standard I guess. There's no way in he** the N0 hands indicated in the sim are "physical" hands. Or rounds. In case, you or anyone may have actually assumed that is what it meant.

But "Stan Dev" per hand always seems to be per physical hand played. Or per "round" I assume in this case.

But $win/hd always seems to be some watered-down avg per hand based on hands "seen" rather than hands "physically played". Maybe that win% is also watered-down and I've never realized it.

Maybe I never noticed stuff like this because almost all posted sim-pics I've seen are based on 100/hds/hr rather than 80. I don't know.

So, my question to you as a user of this software, if all you knew using this sim was you played 500 physical "rounds" (ie against 500 dealer upcards), what would you think your $EV is? OK even if you knew it took as it happened to take you 10 hours or 15 hours to do it? Or maybe didn't even to bother to recording the time played at all?

I fear that some may just look at the sim results and think their $EV is $0.29/hd or rd, * 500 rounds physically played when nothing could be farther from the truth it seems to me.

Would it be apparent to you that your $win-rate/rd is $0.29/.526=$0.55 per physical round, as I think QFIT said?

And let's not get into figuring out SD if all one know is "hours" played, as is often seemingly to be the standard people often quote, and the kind of error it could easily introduce over time.

Why is $SD/hd per physical hand played but $EV/hd isn't? If I understand it right.

Not realy asking you lol.

All I've ever known is expectation and SD per physical hand played and, I guess just me, while I understand "hourly" stuff may indicate best use of your money for an hour, I've never really cared that much about the best use of my money for an hour. I'd rather know how many physical rounds I've played first and what to expect from that many rounds physically played and worry about how long it may have took me to play that many rounds later.

Even a flat-betting -EV BS playing all-hands guy like me would rather know in a -0.005 game would rather know when i have played 200 rounds and have expected to lose 1 unit than know I have played 2 hours at 100/hds/hr or 3.33 hrs at 60 hds/hr.

Not to mention why not just specify in a seaprate coulmn the co-variance at each TC when spreading to multiple hands rather than "invisibly to the user" taking it into account? OK, that would probably be a major software change lol. But, I never know, when CVCX is spreading, the amount of error that is introduced when I just always assume a co-variance of 0.48 at every TC.

I suspect not much but, sometimes, if I'm off, I wonder whether it may be that or something else. I pretty much assume it's something else lmao.
 

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#13
I'll take a shot at some of these:
Kasi said:
If just back-counting, without spreading, does it mean avg initial bet per physical round played or some watered-down avg bet taking into account the 80 hands "seen/hr" just as the avg win per hand of $0.29 is some watered-down avg of $win /hd based on 80/hds/hr in this case.

If back-counting and spreading, does it represent the avg initial $bet including both "hands" (1 round) and/or is it an avg bet per physical "round" (or "hand") played?
When backcounting, CVData indicates the number of hands skipped which would imply that no bet is placed on those hands. The win rate is calculated based only on hands played which can be doubled checked by taking the total units won for the entire sim/ total hands played X hands/hr. All this info is provided. Note: CVCX does not provide this info.

What I would personally want to know is what the heck to expect after having played 500 physical rounds according to this sim and I don't give a darn how many hours it may have took me lol.

It's bad enough, to me, N0 is always seemingly expressed as number of hands required in "hours" doing whatever, back-counting or not, when the reality is N0 is achieved in many fewer physical rounds when not playing all hands "seen". I accept that as some kind of software standard I guess. There's no way in he** the N0 hands indicated in the sim are "physical" hands. Or rounds. In case, you or anyone may have actually assumed that is what it meant.

But "Stan Dev" per hand always seems to be per physical hand played. Or per "round" I assume in this case.
For win rate per hand thats just simple division.. win rate/hr / # of hands per hr

N0 is not # of hands in hours. If you ran two sims , one play all and one backcounting the N0 drops accordingly. Why would you think this isn't the case as "physical hands"? (added note: cvcx does not provide hand skipped info so you would not know if it was taken into consideration)

SD in CVData is provided per hand, per shoe, per hr, and per 100 hands.

But $win/hd always seems to be some watered-down avg per hand based on hands "seen" rather than hands "physically played". Maybe that win% is
also watered-down and I've never realized it.

Maybe I never noticed stuff like this because almost all posted sim-pics I've seen are based on 100/hds/hr rather than 80. I don't know.
Win rate is based on hands played, and does not include hands skipped. CVData allows you to go as low as 25 hands per hour, but would we ever play at that slow a pace... unless we were in the party pit... drinking... taking a break.... and enjoying the sights :grin:.

So, my question to you as a user of this software, if all you knew using this sim was you played 500 physical "rounds" (ie against 500 dealer upcards), what would you think your $EV is? OK even if you knew it took as it happened to take you 10 hours or 15 hours to do it? Or maybe didn't even to bother to recording the time played at all?

I fear that some may just look at the sim results and think their $EV is $0.29/hd or rd, * 500 rounds physically played when nothing could be farther from the truth it seems to me.
I would hope the users or those viewers reading the posts understand that the win rate is over the long run... and not a daily win rate.

Edit: CVCX and CVData are two completely different programs and I believe that some users think they're purchasing a similar program (cvcx), they are both called BJ simulators, but at a reduced price because it has less features. This is NOT the case.

BJC
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#14
I'm having trouble figuring out your question. Again, for win rate per physical hand played, divide the win rate per hand by the backcount % - .526 in this case.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#15
QFIT said:
I'm having trouble figuring out your question. Again, for win rate per physical hand played, divide the win rate per hand by the backcount % - .526 in this case.
Thank you, QFIT, for hanging in with me when you certainly don't have to. Especially when I also sometimes don't even know what questions I'm asking lol.

OK, so $0.29/.526=$0.55 win per physical, I assume "round?'. So, $0.55 * 80 rounds seen per hour * .526 actually played= 42.08 rounds physically played per hour. And $0.55*42.08=$23.20 like in your sim.

Then why does not $0.55/$29.27 avg (initial) bet per round=1.374%?

After one hour will one have bet $29.27 * 42.08 physical rounds played = $1231 as an initial bet? But $1231 * 1.374% doesn't equal $23.30.

So I guess my other questions here then become what does the $29.27 avg bet represent and what does the w/L% of 1.374% represent?

Maybe even what does the back-counting % of 52.6% represent - like you just gave me a thought that maybe it represents playing 52.6% of every 80 hands seen when I am used to it representing it means 52.6 of every 100 hands seen? That could be my problem here.

Never mind the "thought" I just said, apparently that is what the 52.6% represents - one plays 52.6% of every 80 hands seen, not every 100 hands seen, right? Back to the drawing boards.

Like I always have to convert your frequencies that always seem to add to 100% even when back-counting to the proportional equivalent because that is the only way I know how to do it since that is the way it was in Don's book.

Last question, if you feel like it, how many physical rounds played and/or hours do the 15930 N0 hands represent - like would it also assume 80/rds/hr in this case or the usual (at least what I thought was usual lol) 100 rds seen per hour? Or, if you are incredibly bored just run thru the EV=1SD calc in this case. I could probably figure out how stupid I am from there. Maybe. Don't count on it.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#16
bjcount said:
When backcounting, CVData indicates the number of hands skipped which would imply that no bet is placed on those hands. The win rate is calculated based only on hands played which can be doubled checked by taking the total units won for the entire sim/ total hands played X hands/hr. All this info is provided. Note: CVCX does not provide this info.
Thank you bjcount for your reply. Your thoughts are much appreciated.
You're right - I haven't done much work with CVDATA sims. In CVCX, what do you think % usually listed, in this case 52.6%, after "back-counting" is checked, represents? I've assumed it means one has skipped the rest of the hands seen while back-counting but not actually physically playing. So, it seems to me, maybe, that CVCX actually does maybe provide the number of skipped hands.

bjcount said:
For win rate per hand thats just simple division.. win rate/hr / # of hands per hr
I guess you maybe mean number of hands "seen" per hour rather than number of hands physically played per hr when back-counting? QFIT has already said, or seemed to say anyway, the physical $win rate per hand is $0.55 in the sim in question.

bjcount said:
N0 is not # of hands in hours. If you ran two sims , one play all and one backcounting the N0 drops accordingly. Why would you think this isn't the case as "physical hands"? (added note: cvcx does not provide hand skipped info so you would not know if it was taken into consideration)
Of course N0 will drop when back-counting. It doesn't mean that the assumption behind N0 means anything other than "x hands seen" in both cases. When playing-all, hands "seen" and hands "played" are the same. When back-counting, obviously, they are not.

Again, I believe cvcx does provide this info when back-counting is checked.

Can you show me how the N0 of 15,930 hands in the sim in question is the number of hands wherein $EV will equal $1 Stan Dev?

Maybe QFIT could address both points.

I'll try to show you tomorrow why I think what I think. In Don's tables (all I sort of know lol) it seems to me his N0 assumes, when back-counting, "hands seen" as N0 rather than "physical hands played".

Or, alternatively, post the 2 sims you have in mind and we'll see what develops from there.

Or, even, post a CVDATA sim as close as you can interpret to the cvcx sim in question, if you feel like it.

bjcount said:
I would hope the users or those viewers reading the posts understand that the win rate is over the long run... and not a daily win rate.
I would hope the viewers of this post could understand how the "win-rate"
applies whether one plays forever, for one day, or for one physical hand.

I just don't get how, if one doesn't know the latter, one could ever hope to know the first two.

I think I am slowly grasping the fact that cvcx isn't really a "simulator", maybe more like a post-sim analysis after assuming stuff.

And that cvdata may be really the "simulator" to use for actually simming bet spreads, # of players at table, indexes, camo, spreading, etc. stuff.
 

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#17
Kasi,
Excuse my bit of arrogance in one part of my earlier post, none was intended.

Your correct, as Qfit reminded us, cvcx indicates hands skipped by a percentage next to the backcount box.

CVData will generate more accurate results with 100's of times more data then cvcx. CVData does not develop an optimum betting ramp, that's where cvcx comes in.

Since I have 100's of sims in my archives, lets start fresh.

Give me the rules and I'll pop you out two cvdata sims, 200 million hands, RPC 1-12 spread, one play all, one WO, you pick the point.
Tell me if your going to leave the table at WO, wait for a new shuffle, or waiting to re-enter the same shoe.

Maybe the cvdata info is what your looking for. I'll check the massive data box so if you want additional data from the sims it will be available. (tc freq., tc distr.,hand types, w/l dist., etc)

One more piece of info for you to decide on, do you want me to use the standard shuffle as supplied or one of the real ones I created?
A) 4/6d, random plug cutoffs, (1) 2 stack stepladder and (1) r&r
or
B) 5/6d, top cutoffs, (1) 2 stack stepladder and (1) r&r

BJC
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#18
Kasi said:
I'll try to show you tomorrow why I think what I think. In Don's tables (all I sort of know lol) it seems to me his N0 assumes, when back-counting, "hands seen" as N0 rather than "physical hands played".
Don's tables have the same assumptions as CVCX since I created Don's tables with CVCX.:)
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#19
QFIT said:
Don's tables have the same assumptions as CVCX since I created Don's tables with CVCX.:)
I appreciate that lol.

My trouble is Don's Tables never assumed 80/hds/or rds/hr let alone spreading to multiple hands.

Maybe approach this from a different point of view, one I think I understand lol, would you say in Table 10.4, line 8, BC'ing with a practical 1-2 unit spread, that when it says "68676" as N0 hands, it really means about 8177 physical hands played while observing 68876 hands dealt assuming 100 hands seen per hour?

How many hours of play does the N0 number of hands represent in the sim in question?

In Don's tables, even when BC'ing, it always seemed "W/L%" was "win in units per physical round played/avg bet per (I assumed) round in units".

No big deal, my silly spsheet stuff seems to always agree with the tables in Don's book, almost always agrees with cvcx posted sims of back-counting assuming 100.hds.hr, usually gets pretty close assuming spreading and 100/rds/hr but this particular sim, obviously I'm doing something wrong lol.

Just trying to figure out where I'm going wrong lol.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#20
bjcount said:
Kasi,
Excuse my bit of arrogance in one part of my earlier post, none was intended.

Your correct, as Qfit reminded us, cvcx indicates hands skipped by a percentage next to the backcount box.

CVData will generate more accurate results with 100's of times more data then cvcx. CVData does not develop an optimum betting ramp, that's where cvcx comes in.

Since I have 100's of sims in my archives, lets start fresh.

Give me the rules and I'll pop you out two cvdata sims, 200 million hands, RPC 1-12 spread, one play all, one WO, you pick the point.
Tell me if your going to leave the table at WO, wait for a new shuffle, or waiting to re-enter the same shoe.

Maybe the cvdata info is what your looking for. I'll check the massive data box so if you want additional data from the sims it will be available. (tc freq., tc distr.,hand types, w/l dist., etc)

One more piece of info for you to decide on, do you want me to use the standard shuffle as supplied or one of the real ones I created?
A) 4/6d, random plug cutoffs, (1) 2 stack stepladder and (1) r&r
or
B) 5/6d, top cutoffs, (1) 2 stack stepladder and (1) r&r

BJC
My profound apologies BJC if I ever somehow made you feel I thought you arrogant in the slightest way.

The thought never crossed my mind for a nano-second, believe it or not. I appreciate your thoughts and your effort in trying to help me out of my confusion lol.

I don't know, maybe doing the exact sim at 100/hds or "rds"/hr might help me figure out how ignorant I am lol.

If I think of something for you to do that I think would help me, don't worry, I won't be shy about asking!

Thanks again.
 
Top