CVCX modified shoe contents

B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
If you are setting up a sim with 6 decks and then use the modified shoe content to change the deck composition, does it use the composition as if that is the portion left in the shoe and give accurate results?
For example, if we set up the cards as:
(A)16-(2)22-(3)20-(4)21-(5)20-(6)21-(7)22-(8)20-(9)18-(T)84

which would represent 48 cards (approx 1d) played.

My reason is this.
I ran numerous sims modifying the counts randomly with the intention to see how the aces and tens change the results.

I found that if you set it up like this:
A20-22-20-19-20-21-22-19-18-T83, the score is close to the same results as using a normal shoe using the rules I had set up. (37.66)

When you set it up like this:
A22-20-19-20-19-20-19-20-19-T80 or
A24-20-19-20-19-20-19-20-19-T78

the high aces and lower ten counts more then doubled the SCORE (81.57 & 81.23)

The example above with the A (16) came in with a SCORE of only 5.05.

I realize the card count are not the same in each example. The disparity of the SCORE IMO is very interesting.

If this is set up correctly, perhaps Ace Side counts carry more value in shoes then thought.

Assistance please.

BJC
 
Last edited:
R

rukus

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
bjcount said:
If you are setting up a sim with 6 decks and then use the modified shoe content to change the deck composition, does it use the composition as if that is the portion left in the shoe and give accurate results?
For example, if we set up the cards as:
(A)16-(2)22-(3)20-(4)21-(5)20-(6)21-(7)22-(8)20-(9)18-(T)84

which would represent 48 cards (approx 1d) played.

My reason is this.
I ran numerous sims modifying the counts randomly with the intention to see how the aces and tens change the results.

I found that if you set it up like this:
A20-22-20-19-20-21-22-19-18-T83, the score is close to the same results as using a normal shoe using the rules I had set up. (37.66)

When you set it up like this:
A22-20-19-20-19-20-19-20-19-T80 or
A24-20-19-20-19-20-19-20-19-T78

the high aces and lower ten counts more then doubled the SCORE (81.57 & 81.23)

The example above with the A (16) came in with a SCORE of only 5.05.

I realize the card count are not the same in each example. The disparity of the SCORE IMO is very interesting.

If this is set up correctly, perhaps Ace Side counts carry more value in shoes then thought.

Assistance please.

BJC
Click to expand...
i think its crystal clear to everyone that a less-than-normal ace density is detrimental to the player and a greater-than-normal density is better for the player. no one would argue with that. the amount it affects score is determined by your bet ramp to a large degree obviously.

to use that information in a shoe is pretty tough though (trust me, i used to do it before switching to zen :devil:). first, your quarter-deck visual accuracy must be perfect. if you are off by 6 cards you will adjust improperly. arguments today say counts like zen or others can achieve the same EV without the need to side-count these aces anyway. i personally chose it to get rid of the headaches ;).

besides the arguments about it being visually/mentally possible to adjust properly based on quarter-deck density, there are other practical arguments for why this may not be practical.

first - how often (ie probable) will the densities shift such that it could give you such disparities in SCORE (that you found) to make it worthwhile for you to side-count the aces? maybe CVData can answer this - try seeing if there is a chart that can tell you % of each card dealt at various points in the shoe. would be a handy feature. i would actually love to know if CVData has a feature like this. I know you can get TC distributions by shoe, but what about by card type dealt.

second - you need to be sure that your extra ace density is not outweighed by an extreme lack of tens. a bunch of aces with no tens left is worthless ;). so you will mentally need to adjust your running count for the fact that a lot of high cards coming out have been tens. its a lot more math to do at the table, but im sure someone can handle it.

anyway, my point it this: no one will argue that knowing that a bunch of aces are yet to come because there have been a lack of them thus far. but how often does the disparity in ace density change enough to make it worthwhile for you to keep track of this beyond just a regular count that accounts for the Ace like zen or hi-lo?

thoughts?
 
B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
Rukus,
Thanks for the response.
Actually by the results I received, the higher than normal ace count indicated was much more detrimental to the SCORE which would hurt the player, then the less than normal distribution. Some of the sims are at the extreme card count but I needed to run them for comparison purposes. Clustered aces come out very often which may be why ace side counting for the first 2 decks played may be to some advantage. Revere stated that an ace side count should be used to adjust the RC before you bet, and the BC is already one of the highest at 0.99 (RPC). Based on the results below it stands to reason why he made that statement even if it was based on pitch games. RPC tags the ace as -2 vs Zen/hi-lo at -1. The offset is the 3 tag which RPC is +2, where Zen/hi-lo is at +1.

I thought I had posted my additional sims which provide additional results at different levels of card counts but all examples are at a TC=0. By using a TC=0 it shows how biased the shoe becomes when the aces/tens count are modified.

Here is the complete list of Sims I ran modifying the shoe contents to see how the change in card counts affect the SCORE and to see if an Ace Side Count would offer any advantage . In every Sim run similar results were achieved. If there was too large a proportion of Aces to Tens, then the SCORE was substantially lower than the control Sim. When the Ace count fell in too large a proportion to the Tens, the SCORE fell but not as dramatically as the latter.
An Ace Side Count may be useful during the first 1-2 decks played of a shoe game if the SCORE is so dramatically affected.

RPC RA (there are no indices <-7 or >9
All card counts are formatted as: A(Ace)-(2)-(3)-…. T(tens)
CONTROL SIM results: 4.5/6D pen TBA=1.076 SCORE=49.00

One deck played:
A24-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T76 TBA=1.030 SCORE=44.75
A20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T80 TBA=1.117 SCORE=53.08
A18-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T82 TBA=1.152 SCORE=56.69
A16-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T84 TBA=1.129 SCORE=54.72
A12-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T88 TBA=1.065 SCORE=49.21
A8-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T92 TBA=0.943 SCORE=39.12

TWO decks played:
A24-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T56 TBA=0.669 SCORE=18.84
A16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T64 TBA=1.109 SCORE=52.53
A12-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T68 TBA=1.124 SCORE=54.59
A8-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T72 TBA=1.007 SCORE=44.45

A24-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T56 TBA=0.611 SCORE=15.78
A16-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T64 TBA=1.057 SCORE=48.00
A12-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T68 TBA=1.076 SCORE=50.34

A24-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T56 TBA=0.625 SCORE=16.35
A20-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T60 TBA=0.905 SCORE=34.42
A16-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T64 TBA=1.058 SCORE=47.45
A12-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T68 TBA=1.080 SCORE=50.00
A10-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T70 TBA=1.019 SCORE=44.86

A24-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T56 TBA=0.618 SCORE=15.86
A20-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T60 TBA=0.915 SCORE=34.98
A16-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T64 TBA=1.077 SCORE=48.82
A12-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T68 TBA=1.094 SCORE=50.92
A10-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T70 TBA=1.051 SCORE=47.38

Three Decks Played:
A24-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T36 TBA=(-.415) SCORE=(-7.22)
A16-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T44 TBA=0.833 SCORE=29.42
A12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T48 TBA=1.051 SCORE=47.35
A8-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T52 TBA=1.030 SCORE=46.22


BJC
 
Last edited:
R

rukus

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
bjcount said:
Rukus,
Thanks for the response.
Actually by the results I received, the higher than normal ace count indicated was much more detrimental to the SCORE which would hurt the player, then the less than normal distribution. Some of the sims are at the extreme card count but I needed to run them for comparison purposes. Clustered aces come out very often which may be why ace side counting for the first 2 decks played may be to some advantage. Revere stated that an ace side count should be used to adjust the RC before you bet, and the BC is already one of the highest at 0.99 (RPC). Based on the results below it stands to reason why he made that statement even if it was based on pitch games. RPC tags the ace as -2 vs Zen/hi-lo at -1. The offset is the 3 tag which RPC is +2, where Zen/hi-lo is at +1.

I thought I had posted my additional sims which provide additional results at different levels of card counts but all examples are at a TC=0. By using a TC=0 it shows how biased the shoe becomes when the aces/tens count are modified.

Here is the complete list of Sims I ran modifying the shoe contents to see how the change in card counts affect the SCORE and to see if an Ace Side Count would offer any advantage . In every Sim run similar results were achieved. If there was too large a proportion of Aces to Tens, then the SCORE was substantially lower than the control Sim. When the Ace count fell in too large a proportion to the Tens, the SCORE fell but not as dramatically as the latter.
An Ace Side Count may be useful during the first 1-2 decks played of a shoe game if the SCORE is so dramatically affected.

RPC RA (there are no indices <-7 or >9
All card counts are formatted as: A(Ace)-(2)-(3)-…. T(tens)
CONTROL SIM results: 4.5/6D pen TBA=1.076 SCORE=49.00

One deck played:
A24-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T76 TBA=1.030 SCORE=44.75
A20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T80 TBA=1.117 SCORE=53.08
A18-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T82 TBA=1.152 SCORE=56.69
A16-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T84 TBA=1.129 SCORE=54.72
A12-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T88 TBA=1.065 SCORE=49.21
A8-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-T92 TBA=0.943 SCORE=39.12

TWO decks played:
A24-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T56 TBA=0.669 SCORE=18.84
A16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T64 TBA=1.109 SCORE=52.53
A12-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T68 TBA=1.124 SCORE=54.59
A8-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-16-T72 TBA=1.007 SCORE=44.45

A24-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T56 TBA=0.611 SCORE=15.78
A16-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T64 TBA=1.057 SCORE=48.00
A12-15-14-12-20-18-17-14-18-T68 TBA=1.076 SCORE=50.34

A24-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T56 TBA=0.625 SCORE=16.35
A20-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T60 TBA=0.905 SCORE=34.42
A16-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T64 TBA=1.058 SCORE=47.45
A12-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T68 TBA=1.080 SCORE=50.00
A10-18-18-17-15-14-14-18-14-T70 TBA=1.019 SCORE=44.86

A24-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T56 TBA=0.618 SCORE=15.86
A20-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T60 TBA=0.915 SCORE=34.98
A16-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T64 TBA=1.077 SCORE=48.82
A12-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T68 TBA=1.094 SCORE=50.92
A10-20-20-19-13-12-12-19-13-T70 TBA=1.051 SCORE=47.38

Three Decks Played:
A24-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T36 TBA=(-.415) SCORE=(-7.22)
A16-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T44 TBA=0.833 SCORE=29.42
A12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T48 TBA=1.051 SCORE=47.35
A8-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-T52 TBA=1.030 SCORE=46.22


BJC
Click to expand...
as i suggested above, maybe the first step to seeing if it is worth it to track aces vs tens for a deck or two is to determine what the distribution of the # of each card remaining looks like after a deck or two, ie on average how many of each card are left and what the standard deviation of that # is. if these types of situations that you simmed above come up very infrequently, then it might not be worth the mental effort.

id be very interested to see those results.

dont get me wrong, im not against side counting aces and will not argue that it doesnt help. i did side count them for a while in shoes. what i (and many many many others) am pointing out is that the advantages the sidecount determines in a shoe game might not be worth it to keep your brain in use for it rather than seeking out other advantages. and thats if you keep a perfect side count.

rukus
 
B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
rukus said:
as i suggested above, maybe the first step to seeing if it is worth it to track aces vs tens for a deck or two is to determine what the distribution of the # of each card remaining looks like after a deck or two, ie on average how many of each card are left and what the standard deviation of that # is. if these types of situations that you simmed above come up very infrequently, then it might not be worth the mental effort.

id be very interested to see those results.

dont get me wrong, im not against side counting aces and will not argue that it doesnt help. i did side count them for a while in shoes. what i (and many many many others) am pointing out is that the advantages the sidecount determines in a shoe game might not be worth it to keep your brain in use for it rather than seeking out other advantages. and thats if you keep a perfect side count.

rukus
Click to expand...
hmm..
I see that my sampling is too few vs the great number of possible card combinations that = TC of 0 to make a determination. It would require a program to create and run the huge number of combinations. I'll have to put this on the back burner for now.
Thanks for your comments.
BJC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top