Playing efficiency and Single Deck BJ

K

KounterStrike

Member
#1
#1
I am wondering what is the effect of playing efficiency (PE) on single deck with the dreaded 6:5 payout. I know that all single-parameter systems converge at 70% PE. One would need to use a multi-parameter system to achieve higher PE, well lets say you have a system that would yield 90% PE, would that be enough to play at a positive EV with 1:2 spread or maybe flat betting. Any thoughts please?
 
moo321

moo321

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
KounterStrike said:
I am wondering what is the effect of playing efficiency (PE) on single deck with the dreaded 6:5 payout. I know that all single-parameter systems converge at 70% PE. One would need to use a multi-parameter system to achieve higher PE, well lets say you have a system that would yield 90% PE, would that be enough to play at a positive EV with 1:2 spread or maybe flat betting. Any thoughts please?
Click to expand...
Oh, hell no. You can barely beat a regular single deck game.

6:5? You probably want a 1-20 spread.
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
I have often wondered about exactly this question.

My hunch is that if one used Hi-Opt II with side counted Aces and a full matrix of departure indices,
it would take 10-1 to gain an edge and 8-1 if playing with only one other table-mate.
This is all dependent upon perhaps 67+% penetration or better.

Can someone simulate this pulleeze.
 
S

standard toaster

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
KounterStrike said:
I am wondering what is the effect of playing efficiency (PE) on single deck with the dreaded 6:5 payout. I know that all single-parameter systems converge at 70% PE. One would need to use a multi-parameter system to achieve higher PE, well lets say you have a system that would yield 90% PE, would that be enough to play at a positive EV with 1:2 spread or maybe flat betting. Any thoughts please?
Click to expand...
a 1:2 spread? No it wouldent even come close to a good game a 1:2 spread wouldent be good for a two to one bj payout. You would need a big spread as flash has suggested maybe even larger.. as we await the results. Stick to 3:2
 
iCountNTrack

iCountNTrack

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
standard toaster said:
a 1:2 spread? No it wouldent even come close to a good game a 1:2 spread wouldent be good for a two to one bj payout. You would need a big spread as flash has suggested maybe even larger.. as we await the results. Stick to 3:2
Click to expand...
Actually if one plays BS flat betting with SD S17 DAS 3 to 2 BJ payoff, you will be playing with a positive EV, so a 2 to 1 BJ payoff would be like being in heaven :).

That is actually a good question, i doubt that playing with 90% efficiency would overcome the dreadful 6 to 5 BJ payoff, maybe 7 to 5.

I am not an expert on setting-up a multi-parameter table simulation on CVdata, perhaps QFIT could show us the way. :)
 
S

standard toaster

Well-Known Member
#6
#6
iCountNTrack said:
Actually if one plays BS flat betting with SD S17 DAS 3 to 2 BJ payoff, you will be playing with a positive EV, so a 2 to 1 BJ payoff would be like being in heaven :).

That is actually a good question, i doubt that playing with 90% efficiency would overcome the dreadful 6 to 5 BJ payoff, maybe 7 to 5.

I am not an expert on setting-up a multi-parameter table simulation on CVdata, perhaps QFIT could show us the way. :)
Click to expand...
i was assuming it was h17 with very conservative rules but your right maybe i exagerated a bit:joker:

point a 1-2 spread isnt going to do much
 
B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
Heres a quick sim result for SD. I don't know how to set up side counts so the sim is without an ace sc. Not sure of TC conversion for HO2 but did 1/2 deck and truncate. (At 1DTC score was higher, above 50 on 3:2, and near -0- at 6:5)
Let me know if I need to change something.
HO2, 1-15 spread, DAS, S17, LS (1-8 spread was neg at 6:5) cut at 76%, 200mil hands
top one is BJ pays 3:2
bottom is BJ 6:5

BJC
 

Attachments

FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#9
#9
Hi-Opt II really REQUIRES adjustment for Side-Counted Aces, because the
betting correlation drops from .99 to .91 without it - rendering it an abominable count.
 
B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
FLASH1296 said:
Hi-Opt II really REQUIRES adjustment for Side-Counted Aces, because the
betting correlation drops from .99 to .91 without it - rendering it an abominable count.
Click to expand...
Sorry FLASH, but setting up the ace side count takes a bit of work, and I'm not really sure how to set it up correctly. There is a sample in cvdata but I am not sure if the sample is accurate for asc.

BJC
 
iCountNTrack

iCountNTrack

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
FLASH1296 said:
Hi-Opt II really REQUIRES adjustment for Side-Counted Aces, because the
betting correlation drops from .99 to .91 without it - rendering it an abominable count.
Click to expand...

Actually for SD deck games HiOpt II works very well without an ace side,
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration7.htm

that is because playing efficiency is more important than betting correlation, and you don't actually gain any playing efficiency by adding an ace side for betting. As KounterStrike mentioned one would have to include multi-parameter tables in the playing strategyto increase the PLAYING EFFICIENCY. That was anyway the question to start with
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#12
#12

I would suggest sims this way:

[tags, left to right, Deuce to Ace]

2 2 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3 -2

betting correlation = .99
playing effciency = .62

Actually for this game, with restricted snapper payoffs, the following count should be best, I M H O:

[tags, left to right, Deuce to Ace]

1 2 3 3 2 2 0 -1 -3 0

betting correlation = .93
playing effciency = .68

I would love to see the difference in performance between these two counts as one is Ace-reckoned and the other isn't !

 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
Playing Efficiency/Betting Correlation (no Insurance coefficient)



2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X A pe bc

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 .05 .53
2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 .56 .86
3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 0 .61 .88
4 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 0 .64 .85
5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 .51 .97
6 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 .55 .95
7 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 .59 .92
8 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 0 .63 .89
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 .54 .98
10 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -2 .05 .58
11 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 -1 0 .49 .78
12 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 -1 0 .57 .83
13 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 .51 .94
14 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 .53 .91
15 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 .57 .89
16 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 0 .59 .86
17 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 .47 .89
18 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 .53 .84
19 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1.51 .97
20 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1.54 .96
21 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1.49 .94
22 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1.46 .89
23 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 -1 -2.4 .96
24 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 -1 -2 .43 .94
25 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 .4 .93
26 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 -1 -2 .38 .88
27 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -2.45 .98
28 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -2.41 .97
29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -2.43 .94
30 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -2.41 .93
31 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -2.44 .95
32 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -1 -2.42 .91
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 1 .61 .72
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 0 .61 .8
35 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 -2 0 .67 .88
36 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 -2 0 .67 .91
37 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2 0 .63 .9
38 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 0 .66 .89
39 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 0 .65 .91
40 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 0 .67 .93
41 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -2 0 .62 .92
42 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -1 .63 .97
43 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 -2 -1 .58 .95
44 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -1 .61 .94
45 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -1.62 .98
46 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -2 -1.57 .97
47 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 -1 -2 -1.62 .95
48 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 -2 -2 0 .63 .93
49 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -2 .56 .99
50 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 -2 -2 -1.59 .97
51 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2.55 1
52 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 -2 -2 -1.61 .96
53 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 -1 -2 -2.57 .99
54 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 -2 -3 .48 .98
55 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 -2 -3 .49 .97
56 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -2 -3 .49 .98
57 1 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 -2 -3 .46 .97
58 1 2 3 3 1 1 0 0 -2 -3 .48 .97
59 1 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 -2 -3 .49 .97
60 0 2 3 3 2 1 0 0 -2 -3 .48 .96
61 0 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 -2 -3 .45 .94
62 1 2 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 .57 1
63 1 2 3 3 2 0 0 -1 -2 -2 .53.98
64 0 2 3 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 .55.97
65 1 2 3 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 .5 1
66 1 2 3 3 2 1 0 0 -3 0 .66 .92
67 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 -3 0 .66 .92
68 2 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 -3 0 .63 .91
69 1 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 -3 0 .63 .9
70 1 2 3 3 2 2 0 -1 -3 0 .68 .93
71 2 2 3 3 2 2 0 -1 -3 0 .67 .94
72 2 2 3 3 3 1 0 -1 -3 0 .66 .94
73 1 2 3 3 3 2 0 -2 -3 0 .67 .93
74 1 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 -3 -1 .65 .95
75 2 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 -3 -1 .64 .96
76 2 2 3 3 3 1 0 0 -3 -1 .63 .96
77 1 2 3 3 2 2 0 0 -3 -2 .61 .97
78 2 2 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3 -2.62 .99
79 2 2 3 3 3 2 0 0 -3 -3 .56 .99
80 2 3 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3 -3 .57 1
81 1 2 3 4 2 1 0 -1 -3 0 .66 .93
82 2 2 3 4 2 1 0 -2 -3 0 .65 .94
83 2 2 3 4 2 2 0 -2 -3 -1 .64.97
84 2 2 3 4 3 2 0 -2 -3 -2 .61.99
85 2 2 3 4 3 2 0 -1 -3 -3 .58 1
86 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 -1 -3 -4 .53 1
87 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 -1 -4 0 .68 .93
88 2 3 3 4 3 2 0 0 -4 -1 .66 .95
89 2 2 4 4 3 2 0 0 -4 -1 .66 .95
90 3 3 4 4 2 2 0 -1 -4 -1 .64.96
91 2 3 4 4 3 2 0 -1 -4 -1 .66.96
92 2 2 4 4 3 3 0 -1 -4 -1 .67.95
93 2 3 4 4 3 3 0 -2 -4 -1 .66.96
94 3 3 4 4 3 2 0 -2 -4 -1 .65.97
95 3 3 4 4 3 3 0 -2 -4 -2 .63.98
96 3 3 4 4 3 3 0 0 -4 -4 .56 .99
97 3 3 4 4 4 2 0 0 -4 -4 .56 .99
98 3 3 4 4 4 3 0 -1 -4 -4 .57 1
99 3 3 4 4 3 3 0 -1 -4 -3 .6 .99
100 3 3 4 4 4 2 0 -1 -4 -3 .6.99

Playing Efficiency/Betting Correlation (no Insurance coefficient)

I apologize as the formatting is "off."

 
B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#14
#14
FLASH1296 said:

I would suggest sims this way:

[tags, left to right, Deuce to Ace]

2 2 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3 -2

betting correlation = .99
playing effciency = .62

Actually for this game, with restricted snapper payoffs, the following count should be best, I M H O:

[tags, left to right, Deuce to Ace]

1 2 3 3 2 2 0 -1 -3 0

betting correlation = .93
playing effciency = .68

I would love to see the difference in performance between these two counts as one is Ace-reckoned and the other isn't !
Click to expand...
I try to set up the sims with the above tags in the next few hours, using ho2 indices, but the BC & PE are results not adjustable values in the sim.

BJC
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
FLASH1296 said:

I would suggest sims this way:

[tags, left to right, Deuce to Ace]

2 2 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3 -2

betting correlation = .99
playing effciency = .62

Actually for this game, with restricted snapper payoffs, the following count should be best, I M H O:

[tags, left to right, Deuce to Ace]

1 2 3 3 2 2 0 -1 -3 0

betting correlation = .93
playing effciency = .68

I would love to see the difference in performance between these two counts as one is Ace-reckoned and the other isn't !
Click to expand...

Cool counts!

Herea another one, I like 2233210-1-3,0

.93(.995w/A)3:2
.664
.89
 
Last edited:
B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
FLASH1296 said:

I would suggest sims this way:

[tags, left to right, Deuce to Ace]

2 2 3 3 3 2 0 -1 -3 -2

betting correlation = .99
playing effciency = .62

Actually for this game, with restricted snapper payoffs, the following count should be best, I M H O:

[tags, left to right, Deuce to Ace]

1 2 3 3 2 2 0 -1 -3 0

betting correlation = .93
playing effciency = .68

I would love to see the difference in performance between these two counts as one is Ace-reckoned and the other isn't !
Click to expand...
Results are in.
top is 1st set of tags (HO2A)
SD, 3:2 BJ
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top