Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #11  
Old September 9th, 2007, 12:43 PM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

Hey Mimo, had some time today and run a few sims for you. For 4.5/6 S17 DAS 2Billion rounds with CVCX

Code:
          Score
Moron     16.88
Simple    18.62
Full      18.89
ubz-NS    18.93

KO pref  16.40 
UBZII    16.71   (both canned sims)






The last picture shows a comparsion version of the canned sims vs. ubz-os-full. That UBZ-OS performs so well here is because KO doesn`t split the tens and both soft double are also not contained, I think. You won't be able to split the 10's all the time, so see this comparision with a grain of salt. Furthermore, we don't know how well UBZ-OS-full performes for other rules. That's the next step

Last edited by nightspirit; September 9th, 2007 at 03:40 PM.
  #12  
Old September 17th, 2007, 02:24 PM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

Today I resumed the 2 deck idea and ran some sims. I tried to round the index numbers according Mimosines plan, my previous sims and Monkeys SVUBZ. And thats what i used for 2 decks S17, DAS, LS 2000 billion rounds:

Code:
          index number
12 v. 2          2
12 v. 3          0
12 v. 4         -2
12 v. 5         -8
12 v. 6         -8
13 v. 2         -8
13 v. 3         -8
16 v. 9          2
16 v. 10       -8
15 v. 10        2

8 v. 5           2
8 v. 6           0
9 v. 2          -2
9 v. 7           2
10 v. 10        2
10 v. A         2
11 v. A         -2

A,8 v. 5        -2

A,8 v. 4         8
X,X v. 5         8
X,X v. 6         8

Surrender
15 v. 9           0
15 v. 10          0
14 v. 10          0



Last edited by nightspirit; September 17th, 2007 at 04:11 PM.
  #13  
Old September 20th, 2007, 04:22 PM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

opps.. Insurance +1, for the 2 deck sim above. To insure at 0 or +2 wouldn`t change SCORE that much i think.
  #14  
Old September 20th, 2007, 10:03 PM
Knox Knox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 337
Default

Guys, I am on the verge of a software purchase for sims. I can't take it anymore, not having one. I want to be able to sim any custom system that I develop. Help me double check and make sure I buy the right software first time around. Is Qfit the only way to go and if so which program?

Thanks
  #15  
Old September 21st, 2007, 07:32 AM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knox View Post
Guys, I am on the verge of a software purchase for sims. I can't take it anymore, not having one. I want to be able to sim any custom system that I develop. Help me double check and make sure I buy the right software first time around. Is Qfit the only way to go and if so which program?

Thanks
I only use Qfit's suite and don't know where other simulators have their advantages and disadvantage etc... But with Qfit's software I have all i ever need. And if you got problems or questions Norm's support is outstanding as well.

Among a lot of other things can you sim or redesign your custom systems with CVData and with CVCX you get quick the optimal bet ramp. I think Automaic Monkey, our "Lord of sims" can give you a lot more information.
  #16  
Old September 21st, 2007, 11:03 PM
Mimosine's Avatar
Mimosine Mimosine is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 1,172
Default

NS,

Really good work. I ran some heavy duty powersim sims a few weeks back and was really disappointed with the results. I couldn't get any of the UBZs to outperform KO. I think i tracked it down to an error in my index play file, but was so fed up i put it on the back burner...

your results have rekindled my interest! that is a pretty big difference using simple UBZ vs. KO! wow!

a lot of my index numbers were rounded using intuition and an excel spreadsheet that tracks TC as a function of RC. ZG and others have suggested using rounded index numbers for 2D and SD that are HALF the value of 6D. I think this would work great and be easy to memorize... Insurance would have to be accurate of course since it is the most important.

but we could use -3 and +3 for the other index numbers, the IRC would stay the same for the H 12v4, 13v2, 13v3, and we would have to adjust TT V5,6 to a lower number i think maybe half of the rogue index number.... but more than +3.

does this jive with the results you're seeing?

i need to buy CVCX finally. powersim doesn't cut it, and finally i have a mac that can run windows so i can pump pump pump out some sims on my nice Duo 2.4GHzzzzoooooom!
  #17  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 02:44 PM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine View Post
NS,

Really good work. I ran some heavy duty powersim sims a few weeks back and was really disappointed with the results. I couldn't get any of the UBZs to outperform KO. I think i tracked it down to an error in my index play file, but was so fed up i put it on the back burner...

your results have rekindled my interest! that is a pretty big difference using simple UBZ vs. KO! wow!
Thanks, you'r welcome! I also hope that I doesn't made a mistake with the settings. Would be nice if another member could cross check the results. I think to use CVData for such sims would garuantee a higher accuracy. Could be one method to check it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine View Post
a lot of my index numbers were rounded using intuition and an excel spreadsheet that tracks TC as a function of RC. ZG and others have suggested using rounded index numbers for 2D and SD that are HALF the value of 6D. I think this would work great and be easy to memorize... Insurance would have to be accurate of course since it is the most important.

but we could use -3 and +3 for the other index numbers, the IRC would stay the same for the H 12v4, 13v2, 13v3, and we would have to adjust TT V5,6 to a lower number i think maybe half of the rogue index number.... but more than +3.

does this jive with the results you're seeing?
Yes, sounds good! I must have overlooked your Key Count values.. (I realized that I confused A,8 vs. with A,8 v. 5 first ) I will substitute the -2 and +2 values with -3 and +3, the rogue value could be +10 for 6 decks and +5 for 2 decks. I only choosed +8 because of AM's risk averse indices and it would be easy to remember as +IRC. Anyway, I think your intuitive values will perform as well, if not better and I will try to run the sims according your idea in the next days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine View Post
i need to buy CVCX finally. powersim doesn't cut it, and finally i have a mac that can run windows so i can pump pump pump out some sims on my nice Duo 2.4GHzzzzoooooom!
Yeah, get it! With that processor you could produce sims a waaaayyy faster than I (I don't have the heart to mention which processor I use ...).

Last edited by nightspirit; September 22nd, 2007 at 04:35 PM.
  #18  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 11:29 PM
Mimosine's Avatar
Mimosine Mimosine is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nightspirit View Post
I only choosed +8 because of AM's risk averse indices and it would be easy to remember as +IRC.
that would be easy to remember. go for it!
  #19  
Old September 27th, 2007, 09:29 AM
nightspirit's Avatar
nightspirit nightspirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 363
Default

According Mimosine's idea for 2 decks, I substituted my original "2" index number from above with "3", made some other small changes and compared both with eachother. The "3" performs slightly better. But personally i would stick with the "2". See below.
Code:
                 index 
12 v. 2          3
12 v. 3          0
12 v. 4         -3
12 v. 5         -8
12 v. 6         -8
13 v. 2         -8
13 v. 3         -8
16 v. 9          3
16 v. 10        -8
15 v. 10         3

8 v. 5           3
8 v. 6           0
9 v. 2          -3
9 v. 7           3
10 v. 10         3
10 v. A          3
11 v. A         -3

A,8 v. 5        -3
A,8 v. 6        -3

X,X v. 5         8
X,X v. 6         8

Surrender
15 v. 9           0
15 v. A          -3
14 v. 10          0

insurance         1


Then I generated some index numbers for single deck. Depending on rules and penetration some will change slightly, but since we round them anyway, that doesn't matter much. I generated the same as for DD and 6D. I know it's not possible to use all because of rule restrictions like double on 10,11 only.
For S17
Code:
                 index 
12 v. 2          2
12 v. 3          1
12 v. 4         -1
12 v. 5         -3
12 v. 6         -2
13 v. 2         -2
13 v. 3         -3
16 v. 9          3
16 v. 10        -4
15 v. 10         1

8 v. 5           2
8 v. 6           1
9 v. 7          -1
9 v. 7           2
10 v. 10         1
10 v. A          1
11 v. A         -4

A,8 v. 5        -1
A,8 v. 6        -2

X,X v. 5         3
X,X v. 6         4

Surrender
15 v. 9           1
15 v. A          -2
14 v. 10          0  

insurance        1
If the dealer H17, hit on 12 vs. 6 when RC < -5 and double down 11 vs. A when RC > -4.
For handheld games I would choose only one strategy and use them for both. My suggestion would be:
Code:
                 index
12 v. 2          2
12 v. 3          0
12 v. 4         -2
12 v. 5         irc
12 v. 6         irc
13 v. 2         irc
13 v. 3         irc
16 v. 9          2
16 v. 10        irc
15 v. 10         2

8 v. 5           2
8 v. 6           0
9 v. 2          -2
9 v. 7           2
10 v. 10         2
10 v. A          2
11 v. A         -2

A,8 v. 5         0
A,8 v. 6        -2

X,X v. 5        +irc
X,X v. 6        +irc

Surrender
15 v. 9           0
15 v. A          -2
14 v. 10          0

insurance 
SD    0
DD    1
What do you think? To memorize 6 for 6 decks and 2 for 2 decks sounds fairly simply, or?
The next steps could be to develop optimal betting ramps for SD, DD and 6D. Then we could establish some group values ala KO. The cherry on the top would be to get some wonging and -out points with the TC version.

Last edited by nightspirit; September 27th, 2007 at 11:57 AM.
  #20  
Old September 27th, 2007, 07:02 PM
boneuphtoner boneuphtoner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 148
Default A different approach

To NightSpirit and Mimosine,

You guys have done some great work. I simmed UBZ-OS-Full 6 decks with CVCX and was able to reproduce your results. Which surpassed KO and and the canned UBZ sims by a noticeable margin! Great job.

I've taken a slightly different approach. My goal was to come up with a single set of indices that would best the canned UBZ, KO, and Hi-Lo sims for SD, DD, six and eight decks. One set of indices for everything. I have sims to prove that I've done just that for SD-eight decks.

The UBZ-OS-Full six deck strategy bested my strategy for a six deck sim, which isn't suprising since my strategy was designed as a compromise for all numbers of decks. When I tried your six deck UBZ-OS-Full strategy with a two deck sim, my compromised strategy came out ahead. I have no doubt that your 2 deck strategy would beat my compromised strategy.

I'm using the same IRCs and insurance indexes as you guys...here are my SBA risk averse generated compromise indices:

16 v. 10 -5
15 v. 10 5
16 v. 9 10
12 v. 2 0
12 v. 3 0
12 v. 4 -5
12 v. 5 IRC
12 v. 6 IRC
13 v. 2 IRC
13 v. 3 IRC
9 v. 2 0
9 v. 7 10
8 v. 5 10
8 v. 6 0
10 v. 10 15
10 v. A 10
11 v. A 0
A,8 v. 5 0
A,8 v. 6 0
A,9 v. 5 10
A,9 v. 6 10
10,10 v. 5 10
10, 10 v. 6 10
9,9 v. A 10
9,9 v. 7 10
Surrender
15 v. 9 0
15 v. A 0
14 v. 10 0
14 v. 9 10
14 v. A 10
13 v. 10 15
16 v. 8 10

Could someone verify my results? For single deck, the only difference is all of the +10 indices become +5. That's it. It sims consistently better than the canned UBZ sims across the board. This also sims consistently better than the RPC and Mentor counts (with sweet 16, fab 3 indices) across the board.

Just opening yet another wrinkle in the discussion. The thing I like about this strategy is that there is only one set of indices to remember.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC