help with cv data or cvcx

lucifer

Well-Known Member
#1
do they allow you to wong in at any count. If i decide to buy one of these programs, i want to make sure im not wasting my money.I already own sba5 and bjrm. I want something like bjrm that already has canned sims.I dont want another sba.I want to be able to wong in at any running count(ubz2) and have the software tell me the most optimum placement of bets with my bet spread and bankroll. for example, i dont want to play worse than -8.can i put 1 unit at -8 and 0 at -9.after that is done, will it spit out the best placement of bets.
 
Last edited:

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#2
lucifer said:
do they allow you to wong in at any count. If i decide to buy one of these programs, i want to make sure im not wasting my money.I already own sba5 and bjrm. I want something like bjrm that already has canned sims.I dont want another sba.I want to be able to wong in at any running count(ubz2) and have the software tell me the most optimum placement of bets with my bet spread and bankroll. for example, i dont want to play worse than -8.can i put 1 unit at -8 and 0 at -9.after that is done, will it spit out the best placement of bets.
CVData allows about anything you can imagine. But does not have canned sims or optimal bet calculation.

CVCX is probably what you want. A few points:

1. CVCX and BJRM are post-sim calculators. A post-sim calculator is somewhat limited in wonging. They must estimate wonging results since the sim has already taken place and the effect of wonging on TC frequencies cannot be accurately calculated. However, the estimates are pretty reasonable.

2. CVCX has about 150,000 canned sims.

3. CVCX contains its own simulator and does not require input from another program.

4. CVCX can estimate the effect of wonging in at one point, and leaving at a lower point by running a sim that starts counting at the lower point and using the Departure Adjustment feature.
 
#3
Here's something I'd like to do. I want to set up a real-world backcounting sim, where I have both an entry point and a spread, but also another point where I stop watching a table and move to a new one. It seems like it should be doable.
 

lucifer

Well-Known Member
#4
whats the best way to get optimum bet calculation,if its not already canned. will i have to do 30 different sims and keep changing the units around and take the highest score.When you play all, canned sims will tell you to put your max bet out when the advantage is about 1.25%, when you drop out when the count starts getting ugly, the ramp changes, and your max bet wont come out until you reach 3% advantage since you dont have to make up for all the losses of play all.whats the best way to use cv data to get the optimum ramp.
 
Last edited:

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#5
lucifer said:
whats the best way to get optimum bet calculation,if its not already canned. will i have to do 30 different sims and keep changing the units around and take the highest score.
CVCX automatically, instantly calculates optimal betting as you change parameters.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#6
Automatic Monkey said:
Here's something I'd like to do. I want to set up a real-world backcounting sim, where I have both an entry point and a spread, but also another point where I stop watching a table and move to a new one. It seems like it should be doable.
That's on the CVData futures list.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#7
QFIT said:
...They must estimate wonging results since the sim has already taken place and the effect of wonging on TC frequencies cannot be accurately calculated.....
4. CVCX can estimate the effect of wonging in at one point, and leaving at a lower point by running a sim that starts counting at the lower point and using the Departure Adjustment feature.
I have so many questions on this lol. Apologies in advance lol.

Keep in mind all I can barely understand are the "back-counting" spreads from Don's book. Where, I assume, it assumes one can just sit there and play a round anytime the count is, say, +2. And if the next round throws it into +1.9
he doesn't play it. Is any of that a wrong assumption?

So, say now I'm the same player, sitting there able to play any round I want, choose to only to begin to play at +2 but will never leave unless the TC drops below +1. In other words, I will stop playing at +0.9.

I've always thought the main thing is, in this case, maybe like you are saying, the frequencies of rounds at +1 would change alot from the frequencies in Don's tables. Am I wrong in thinking the advantages and SD's at + 1 wouldn't really change at all and the big thing might be the frequencies? Without being exact about it, could you guess, if I had to guess, I could halve the frequency at TC +1 in this case in this case on the assumption that, compared to if I played all hands, I would recover from a count lesser than TC+1 half the time? Would that be a bad, maybe too simplistic of a guess?
Afterall, I suppose sometimes, if I could sit there every round, sometimes it would go TC-1 and could still recover to TC+2. If, in this case, it only ever ecovered to +1, I would not begin to wager again.

Forget about any effect on optimal unit size due to playing more hands at the lower TC. I'm hoping none of this has any thing to do with that ODP stuff.
I don't care about effect on win rate/hr.

It's that frequency stuff when beginning at a higher TC and leaving at a lower one that has always made me wonder.

I've never understood that "Departure Point" completely and always thought it assumed play began at the higher point and departed at the lower point.
But now you say it begins at the lower point. So I have to think about that lol.

In the above, would that mean I enter at +2, it goes to TC0, so I don't play, but I would play if it ever recovered to only +1?

And, if it's only about frequencies, what is so darn hard about running a few billion rounds where I sit there able to play any round I want, always only begin to play at +2, never play when TC is below +1 after that, and only begin to play again if it ever reaches +2 again?

Especially if I don't give a cr*p about some "hourly" rate while worrying about when to leave for another shoe or how long that will take etc., only some simple "per-round" rate is all I want lol?

I guess all this assumes MSE is allowed lol.

Does CVCX allow for MSE vs not in this scenario? Is that a factor that you specify at the beginning somewhere?

Whatever, it seems like such a popular, and maybe not impractical way to play, even if I don't understand how your software addresses it, not sure I would if I had it lol, but I'm pretty sure Powersim is completely incapable of it, no idea about bjrm or sba, but it's great your stuff is addressing it.

Now, honestly, lol, do you know of any other software that might address this stuff in some fashion?
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#10
Kasi said:
I have so many questions on this lol. Apologies in advance lol....
A few answers:

CVCX is like BJRM in that it is a post-sim calculator. Both of these have limitations on handling wonging. Both assume that you can enter and exit at will without affecting TC frequencies.

However, CVCX differs in several manners, two of which relate here. First, it includes its own simulator. Second, it has a departure adjustment feature which makes an attempt at estimating more accurately the effect of Wonging, in particular leaving at a lower TC than where you arrive.

Of course CVData is a full simulator and accurately handles wonging, including leaving and entering depending on combinations of depth and count.
 

MJ1

Well-Known Member
#11
QFIT said:
4. CVCX can estimate the effect of wonging in at one point, and leaving at a lower point by running a sim that starts counting at the lower point and using the Departure Adjustment feature.
I'm sorry Norm but the Departure Adjustment feature on CVCX gives quite a poor estimate of SCORE. When I say poor, the SCORE can be overestimated by as much as 10-20 bucks!!!

I once ran a simulation of KO Preferred where the player wonged in playing 2 hands on CVCX with the DA feature turned on. After that I cross checked the result using CVDATA and the disparity in SCORE was huge! That is to say the DA feature drastically overstated SCORE.

Perhaps the player wonging in with 2 hands rather than 1 threw off the result, maybe it was the fact that KO is an unbalanced system, maybe it was a combination of the two. But judging from the enormous difference in the results between CVCX and CVDATA, I am forced to conclude that the DA feature on CVCX is less than reliable.

In the past, even you have acknowledged that the DA feature is not all that accurate and you recommended leaving it off. The DA feature notwithstanding, everything else about CVCX is right on and I highly recommend it as well as CVDATA.

MJ
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#12
MJ1 said:
I'm sorry Norm but the Departure Adjustment feature on CVCX gives quite a poor estimate of SCORE. When I say poor, the SCORE can be overestimated by as much as 10-20 bucks!!!

I once ran a simulation of KO Preferred where the player wonged in playing 2 hands on CVCX with the DA feature turned on. After that I cross checked the result using CVDATA and the disparity in SCORE was huge! That is to say the DA feature drastically overstated SCORE.

Perhaps the player wonging in with 2 hands rather than 1 threw off the result, maybe it was the fact that KO is an unbalanced system, maybe it was a combination of the two. But judging from the enormous difference in the results between CVCX and CVDATA, I am forced to conclude that the DA feature on CVCX is less than reliable.

In the past, even you have acknowledged that the DA feature is not all that accurate and you recommended leaving it off. The DA feature notwithstanding, everything else about CVCX is right on and I highly recommend it as well as CVDATA.

MJ
It definitely was not meant for wonging in with two hands.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#14
MJ1 said:
What about unbalanced counts?
The algorithm was designed by David D'Aquin. He used it for a balanced count. But, I can't think of why it wouldn't work for unbalanced. I never tried it. I would guess it would be less accurate.
 
Top