Major errors in blackjack rules survey?

Sucker

Well-Known Member
#3
I would suggest that you contact Mr Shackleford via one of his websites & inform him of this error-laden web page. He will thank you for the correction.
 

StudiodeKadent

Well-Known Member
#4
CBJN also has some errors. In some of the game estimates, they calculate an incorrect house margin.

For instance, I notice they describe a 2d S17 game as having a house margin of 0.19%. This is only true if the game allows RSA, and typically CBJN notes when a game allows RSA (and in these cases, the games were not noted as allowing RSA).

This isn't a huge error, but its still an error.
 

Youk

Active Member
#5
StudiodeKadent said:
CBJN also has some errors. In some of the game estimates, they calculate an incorrect house margin.

For instance, I notice they describe a 2d S17 game as having a house margin of 0.19%. This is only true if the game allows RSA, and typically CBJN notes when a game allows RSA (and in these cases, the games were not noted as allowing RSA).

This isn't a huge error, but its still an error.
Not true.

http://www.qfit.com/calc.htm
 

StudiodeKadent

Well-Known Member
#6
#7
So don't use them, then. these surveys are only a reference point. Reports for cbjn like Youk, report what the conditions are at one particular time of the month when they do their survey. It is not a fulltime job for them. Conditions change all the time and may not be the same 20 minutes after the reporter leave. cbjn is well worth the price for me a couple times a year just to point me in the direction of low limit games. I keep track of conditions on my own. the wizzardofvegas survey is free. how can you complain about it?
 

Youk

Active Member
#9
StudiodeKadent said:
I contest your claim with: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html

Setting the rules as 2d S17 DA2 DAS NS RSA gives a house edge of 0.20% (realistic house edge assuming a cut card and total-dependent basic strategy)

nRSA with otherwise same rules gives a house edge of 0.255% (realistic)

However, the "optimal" results are 0.178%... perhaps CBJN are using "optimal" figures instead of "realistic" ones.
Thanks for pointing it out. I always thought that CBJN did underestimate casino advantage. Nonetheless, you can now see the difference. Although the differences in the values are about .08%, it is not very significant when it comes to the fact that you are playing for a 1-1.5% advantage.

-Youk
 

Youk

Active Member
#10
moo321 said:
Any survey of Vegas is going to be wrong within a few weeks of publication.
Awwww you don't like it when you go to the casino and there are no BJ tables?? (BTW, I'm sorry to the person who went to the casinos where that happened and I happened to 'cover' those casinos) :p

Generally, Vegas doesn't change toooo much. From my experience of reporting Vegas for about 3 years, I would say that 90% of CBJN info is good for at least two months.
 
Top