CVCX and optimal departure

[ZenKinG]

When using the backcounting feature, what is CVCX using as an optimal departure point? Im aware it takes into account for rounds observed, but is it it accounting for observing every round of every shoe or using an optimal departure point as discussed in BJA? A 13k N0 for a pure backcounter would be very different for someone who is abandoning the shoe at -1 every time than someone who is observing every roumd of every shoe even if it hits -3 etc.

 

[DSchles]

When using the backcounting feature, what is CVCX using as an optimal departure point? Im aware it takes into account for rounds observed, but is it it accounting for observing every round of every shoe or using an optimal departure point as discussed in BJA? A 13k N0 for a pure backcounter would be very different for someone who is abandoning the shoe at -1 every time than someone who is observing every round of every shoe even if it hits -3 etc.

The bubble says that "hands with low true counts will be skipped." To me, that means that there is no optimal departure. Rather, you get the results for all hands in all shoes played at, say, +1 TC and higher.

Don

 

[ZenKinG]

The bubble says that "hands with low true counts will be skipped." To me, that means that there is no optimal departure. Rather, you get the results for all hands in all shoes played at, say, +1 TC and higher.

Don

Not sure if you understood my question. Im talking about rounds observed not 'played' and if the archived sims are using any optimal departure point to stop observing and finding another table. In the real world I stop watching a shoe around -1 or -1.5 on average, but im not sure if the archived CVCX sims with backcounting selected are assuming standing behind the table for every possible count or if theyre using some type of departure point.

 

[ZenKinG]

Also don, on CVCX they use TC bins correct?

For example TC 0 is actually -0.99 all the way to 0.99, correct? So if I wong out at -1 off the top, i actually input a bet of 0 for TC -1 on CVCX and lower because im only playing until -0.99?

 

[gronbog]

CVCX sims use flooring of true counts. so -1.00 through -0.01 are -1 and 0.00 through 0.99 are 0.

 

[DSchles]

Not sure if you understood my question. Im talking about rounds observed not 'played' and if the archived sims are using any optimal departure point to stop observing and finding another table. In the real world I stop watching a shoe around -1 or -1.5 on average, but im not sure if the archived CVCX sims with backcounting selected are assuming standing behind the table for every possible count or if theyre using some type of departure point.

Your question was clear and my answer was just as clear. They do NOT use any optimal departure algorithm. They report the results of playing all hands in the current shoe at, say, +1 or higher and not playing all the others. You STAY at that table.

Don

 

[ZenKinG]

CVCX sims use flooring of true counts. so -1.00 through -0.01 are -1 and 0.00 through 0.99 are 0.

So that means when i wong out at TC -1, for example -5 RC with 5 decks left in the real world, I need to be putting in a bet value in for -1 on CVCX? That drastically kills the metrics. Guess im sticking to backcounting.

 

[ZenKinG]

Your question was clear and my answer was just as clear. They do NOT use any optimal departure algorithm. They report the results of playing all hands in the current shoe at, say, +1 or higher and not playing all the others. You STAY at that table.

Don

I wonder what my true N0 would then be by using optimal departure. If my backcounting N0 on CVCX is 13k or 14k, what would be my true N0 if im always abandoning shoes at -1? I think this is where the controversial 'departure adjustment' feature from CVCX comes into play. I would guess my N0 match that of departure adjustment and my guess would be that it would be less than 10k rounds since by using optimal departure and abandoning at -1, im getting in the most positive counts in the least amount of time as possible so it would only make sense that my N0 would actually be better than what is stated on CVCX if CVCX is accounting for all rounds seen when departure adjustment is checked off.

*Note to everyone. Departure adjustment is different than optimal departure. Departure adjustment is a feature on CVCX that tells you how many rounds until you can find another shoe. Optimal departure is a metric from Don's book that lets you know when is the best time to abandon a shoe because the count won't be likely to go back up to positive territory to maximize your EV vs time.

 

[TMJdoc]

When you use the backcounting feature on CVCX you are using data of a sim that has already been run. Therefore, you are using information as if you are entering and departing at the same true count. I believe the count frequencies are slightly different under those conditions because the information is based on the same number of players for the entire sim. It is as if a player has to leave when you enter and a player has to enter when you leave.

For more accuracy, you should run your own sim using the wonging feature on the sim page. Then you can choose your entry and departure points as well as a number of other conditions. You can also decide if you want to truncate, floor or round in your true count calculation on the same sim.

 

[ZenKinG]

Although this is off topic to the OP, i dont want to make a new thread bout it.

I read somewhere in Dons book but cant remember where, where he said wonging into the last deck or so actually hurts your results? I remember he said something along the lines, he didnt know why and it surprised him but the sims said that it actually wasnt beneficial to wong into the end of a shoe even if the count calls for it. Don if you remember what Im talking about, can you clarify exactly what you said in there please? I believe it was obviously still +EV to wong into it, but wasnt exactly optimal.

 

[DSchles]

Bottom of page 357 to middle of page 358.

Don

 

[ZenKinG]

Bottom of page 357 to middle of page 358.

Don

So instead of just clarifyimg it here, you point everyone to the page in the book. Too funny. You must clearly care about your book sales. Unbelievable

 

[DSchles]

So instead of just clarifyimg it here, you point everyone to the page in the book. Too funny. You must clearly care about your book sales. Unbelievable

Give me a fucking break! Have you any idea how many thousands of questions I've answered by pointing people to the relevant page in my book?
Do you think I have nothing better to do than to quote verse and chapter all day long. I wrote it once; I'm not going to write it 1,000 more times. If I did, I'd be at my computer all day long.

I don't give a flying fuck about book sales. Never have. Do you think I wrote the book for the money?? The book sells one or two copies a day, year in, and year out. Are you really dumb enough to think that the royalties from that mean something to me?

If you have the book, I gave you the reference to the answer. If you don't, maybe someone else has the time to type it out for you.

Don

 

[KewlJ]

Don,

Don't even waste your time with him. Some people just don't know how to appreciate how fortunate we all are and have been to have access to you.

 

[ZenKinG]

Don,

Don't even waste your time with him. Some people just don't know how to appreciate how fortunate we all are and have been to have access to you.

Yea im the bad guy here. Don knew exactly what i was talking about and even knew the page and everything and still didnt want to just summarize it, which would have taken 5 seconds. Its not like I asked him to summarize the whole book for me, give me a break. Its all good though, little old KJ has come to your rescue.

Also very classy response with f bombs all over. Shows a lot of guilt if anything by being so defensive. Just so you know cursing doesnt make whatever youre saying any more valid.

 

[LC Larry]

Yea im the bad guy here. Don knew exactly what i was talking about and even knew the page and everything and still didnt want to just summarize it, which would have taken 5 seconds. Its not like I asked him to summarize the whole book for me, give me a break. Its all good though, little old KJ has come to your rescue.

Also very classy response with f bombs all over. Shows a lot of guilt if anything by being so defensive. Just so you know cursing doesnt make whatever youre saying any more valid.

You're the supposed "best in the world." If so, WTF are you even asking questions??

Also, you've got no business ripping on Don for F bombs. You're the "king" of them, pardon the pun. Your short existence on the forums with all of your suspensions and banning because of them prove it.

 

[ZenKinG]

Just read pages 357 and 358 and thats not the spot that i originally found what im talking about. I think it's the same topic im referring too, but there was another point in the book where i remember don running a bunch of sims and then saying things would surprise you with what he found such as the negative effect of playing at the end of a shoe, etc.