fwb
Well-Known Member
In CVData under TC calc,
Count recalculation:
-Before betting
-Before insurance
-Before first decision
-Before every close decision
CVCX vs CVData results
- Thread starter fwb
- Start date
In CVData under TC calc,
Count recalculation:
-Before betting
-Before insurance
-Before first decision
-Before every close decision
Hmm...why would the cards being dealt face up or down make a difference to the sim results? I never played a game where the cards are dealt face down but aren't all the cards in any given round ultimately exposed for all to see?
MJ
MJ1 said:
But you stated earlier,
QFIT said:
In order to make this determination, wouldn't you have to actually figure out an optimal bet strategy for backcounting based upon valid TC Freq and then compare the results to those given by CVCX which assumes a player departs the table when the wonger arrives?
Your quote directly above suggests that you have made such a comparison. If no such juxtaposition was ever made, then how can you state what you stated? If such an analysis was performed, then you should be able to provide an approximation as to what % SCORE is gained using a truly "optimal" bet schedule for backcounting.
MJ
fwb
Well-Known Member
In hand-held single or double deck pitch games, players are dealt their cards face down and they look at their hands poker-style. At the end of a round or if a player busts, the cards are turned upwards for all to see. The difference is the playing correlation with what you see....in a single deck game if you could see all 16 cards dealt on the table your index plays would be incredibly accurate.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
And Newton developed the Law of Gravity watching an apple fall from a tree while sitting under it.
And Archimedes developed the Law of Displacement (know nothing of physics) that an object submerged in liguid is lighter by the amount of weight of the liquid it displaced or something like that.
I happen to believe if you had been born in 300BC and/or 1600AD, you'd be right up there with them and neither would have existed in common knowledge today.
If I had been born at either time, no doubt at all in my mind, I'd just have dried skin from sitting in a bathtub half my life and a few rotten apples to eat while spending the other half under an apple tree.
Have you never been honored in some kind of BJ Hall of Fame? I don't know if you have or not. If not, RIDICULOUS.
Developing CVCX by chance and later calling it just an "improvement"? You're killing me
Modesty above and beyond the call if you ask me.Whatever, I don't gush all that much, ask absolutely anyone and everyone here, don't even know why I'm saying what I'm saying now, but just felt compelled to. Maybe because I absolutely know for a fact, not a doubt whatsoever in my mind, I'd be at least 6 figures poorer if God had never invented you.
And sometimes feel I should just send you a commision check lol.
Although I quickly get over that notion lol.
CVBJ gave me the confidence in the accuracy of my play. And counting too, along with use of indexes - though I haven't used counting that much but it was instrumental in helping me to decide early-on that Card-Counting, given the $roll I was willing to commit and given the games I had access to and also given how often I was likely to actually play those games that CC'ing was not the road I chose to pursue. CVCX gave me the confidence to analyze my results after long periods of play of various games under various rules even on the Internet. Even while doing my overall minus EV "voodoo" thing (without consideration to bonuses.)
It allowed me to have confidence in the +EV I enjoyed with bonuses. It allowed me to at least put a "guesstimate" on how lucky or unlucky I was over so long doing the silly stuff i was doing.
And, perhaps, while it may often be overlooked by many, that, perhaps, they may think "Don's Tables" in his BJAIII book are deserving of credit to "Don", even while neither you nor Don think so, just because it may be only one sentence or so in a book of 500 pages that say you were integrally involved and, therefore, your contribution is, perhaps, easily overlooked.
OTOH, without what you have accomplished, perhaps many here would thank you, just because I never would have, without any doubt at all in my mind, ever have had the slightest reason to make a single post here.
I doubt if I would have ever had the courage to play internet BJ at all. I never would have met The Wise One or had the pleasure of reading and responding to what everyone says here. The list is endless. Even though I know you never intended your software to be applied to a minus EV BS player.
But I did anyway as best I could understand it.
I hope I am not the only one whom you may have inspired, I am sure I am not, but, know with certainty that, fwiw, before you die, you have made a huge life-changing difference to at least one poor soul.
I just wanted to say all this crap now, whilst you still might read it, rather than later when you perhaps would be no longer able to read it but I would have said it posthumously anyway, if God wills I should live longer than you.
I assume we're probably both old farts hanging by a thread anyway lol.
Please no reply. Just had to try to say what I felt I had to say.
fwb
Well-Known Member
100% agreed
ETFan is his nemesis? Wow, I missed all that drama! What, over PowerSim?
Powersim is great for those able to hack their own sims (I customized it a lot for my own special sims, as it's incredibly versatile), but it's obviously meant for programmers. For your general player QFIT's software is a much better fit.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
That sounds like the Kool-Aid they've been selling on the site I'm banned from.
PS is possibly the least versatile sim I've ever seen. It doesn't even calc TC correctly, much less handle anything at all unusual. It also isn't meant for programmers given the 1950s, completely unstructured code. It would be better for a programmer to start from scratch.That sounds like the Kool-Aid they've been selling on the site I'm banned from.
I mostly disagree. (Kool aid?)
As I recall, he did choose an odd rounding method that distorted the TC=0 bin, which I found surprising, but it was a simple bug that I fixed quickly. My sims using PowerSim match published results.
But since it is open source, it can, by its nature, handle absolutely anything, including the unusual. You just code it in! This makes it the most versatile sim available. Sure, you need to program, but it's not very difficult code to understand or manipulate.
I do agree that Xbasic is a pretty lousy programming language. But it does work, and for the relatively simple tasks of coding BJ and related simulations it does just fine. I wouldn't want to write anything more elaborate in it though, but I don't have to.
Writing a sim from scratch is certainly an option, but for me, and for what I needed to simulate, it was just quicker to modify the only reasonable available code for BJ I could find. It gave me the correct answers, and saved me a lot of time I'd otherwise need starting from scratch.
It's definitely not (to say the least) the end-all of simulators, but I've yet to find a better "hackable" sim. If there is one, I'm all ears.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
The TC calc routine in PS was one line of code last I looked. In CV, the TC calc routine is longer than all of PS -- hundreds of lines. In SBA, there are actually three separate compiles to handle TC. Humans don't calculate TC like PS, resulting in overly optimistic results.
According to your logic, the following program is the most versatile of all:
Main ()
End
It can do ANYTHING. It can even play bridge or chess. Simply add the code.
If you think it is easy to add "the unusual" to PS, try Spanish 21, or hole-carding, or team play, or real shuffles, or shuffle-tracking, 250 pages of data, different strategies by depth, multi-threading, index generation, hundreds of composition-dependent indexes with no speed loss, multi-parameter strategies, counting by inference, dealer and player errors, floating advantage sims, heat, risk/goal/bankroll calcs, complex wonging, double-exposure, peeking at players' cards, strategies for double-down rescue, discard after split and discard after double.
According to your logic, the following program is the most versatile of all:
Main ()
End
It can do ANYTHING. It can even play bridge or chess. Simply add the code.
If you think it is easy to add "the unusual" to PS, try Spanish 21, or hole-carding, or team play, or real shuffles, or shuffle-tracking, 250 pages of data, different strategies by depth, multi-threading, index generation, hundreds of composition-dependent indexes with no speed loss, multi-parameter strategies, counting by inference, dealer and player errors, floating advantage sims, heat, risk/goal/bankroll calcs, complex wonging, double-exposure, peeking at players' cards, strategies for double-down rescue, discard after split and discard after double.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
i guess maybe you mean using the data in Don's book?
:whip:cause ok, i didn't think you had cvcx?
but the stuff dotted out was well said and yes thanks be to QFIT for that totally kewl mini bj-bash we enjoyed.
QFIT, this is a silly question but I would appreciate an answer.
Why is it that when bet spread increases, the global EV of the game increases?
Obviously when spread increases for a play all game, avg bet increases as you are placing higher wagers at lower counts. I believe you stated in the past that CVCX computes global EV% by the equation WR/Hr / Avg Bet.
So in order for EV% to increase as the spread increases, wouldn't this mean that WR/Hr is increasing at a faster rate than Avg Bet? If so, why does it work out that way?
MJ
Why is it that when bet spread increases, the global EV of the game increases?
Obviously when spread increases for a play all game, avg bet increases as you are placing higher wagers at lower counts. I believe you stated in the past that CVCX computes global EV% by the equation WR/Hr / Avg Bet.
So in order for EV% to increase as the spread increases, wouldn't this mean that WR/Hr is increasing at a faster rate than Avg Bet? If so, why does it work out that way?
MJ
But what happens when the minimum bet is fixed at a certain unit size? Now the % of BR wagered in negative counts remains constant, yet EV% increases as spread increases. Why is that?
EV% = [$/Hr / Avg Bet] x 100, correct?