cvdata
- Thread starter sagefr0g
- Start date
QFIT
Well-Known Member
I've been asked for a log of hands or results several times. I always turn it down since in nearly all cases it is desired to test a progression system and I'm not interested in helping people test systems that I know will fail. In essence, I would be selling a useless tool, and I wouldn't feel honest about it. Also, any sim of value will have hundreds of millions or billions of rounds, and that would fill a disk drive.sagefr0g said:
There is a log of the bankroll kept for the first one million rounds. I create this so people can take a look at the wild swings.
Qfit,QFIT said:I've been asked for a log of hands or results several times. I always turn it down since in nearly all cases it is desired to test a progression system and I'm not interested in helping people test systems that I know will fail. In essence, I would be selling a useless tool, and I wouldn't feel honest about it. Also, any sim of value will have hundreds of millions or billions of rounds, and that would fill a disk drive.
There is a log of the bankroll kept for the first one million rounds. I create this so people can take a look at the wild swings.
I tried to access the log, where does one locate it to access it? Under tools the item titled "log" doesn't bring it up.
BJC
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
ok, right i never thought about how much space such logs would take up.QFIT said:I've been asked for a log of hands or results several times. I always turn it down since in nearly all cases it is desired to test a progression system and I'm not interested in helping people test systems that I know will fail. In essence, I would be selling a useless tool, and I wouldn't feel honest about it. Also, any sim of value will have hundreds of millions or billions of rounds, and that would fill a disk drive.
There is a log of the bankroll kept for the first one million rounds. I create this so people can take a look at the wild swings.
i'm not interested in logs for a progression system. i'm interested in getting data to try and replicate Dubey's stuff.
i appreciated the info.
edit: like the image below shows some info sba used to give, thing is it's not for sale any more
.... and the other image i believe may be from cvdata . (just curios could you put snappers in that data? and Split/DD's ?)
thats close to the kind of info i'm interested in, but would really like to be able to see the hands, sort of like cvbj's log.
like the third image, i've been taking hand data from cvbj log and putting it in excel, thing is it would take so many hands played by hand to get significant data.
Attachments
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
hey sage! did you finally join the cvdata team?sagefr0g said:
Maybe this will give you the info your looking for:sagefr0g said:
Professional Blackjack Analyzer
by D.R. Smith & Stanford Wong
http://www.bjrnet.com/shop/blackjacksoftware.htm#BJCA
I never used this program nor could I even guess what support (or lack of) you'll get but it could never get close to Qfit's excellent super fast replies or assistance.
BJC
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
right, what?, you'd need how many cumulative spread sheets and then i haven't the foggiest how many hard drives to hold themQFIT said:
:whip:, lol i don't even know, scary to think how many man hours to do it.long way of saying it's a logistical nightmare, lol.
maybe you'd need statistics applied to statistics as a heuristic, lol, i dunno.
QFIT, you replied to a post referencing Dubey's stuff before:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=135208&postcount=75
well, it seemed in that post that you are familiar with Dubey's stuff and i'd guess also Gwynn and Seri situational stuff, like Snyder talks about in this link: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm
long way of saying i'm just curious where you and maybe Snyder are getting information regarding such stuff.
like, ok in the one link you stated that "the effect of the last hand is very small -- extremely small in shoes. The effect does not accumulate in multiple hands. That is, losing a hand has a tiny impact on the next hand, assuming no intervening shuffle. Losing four hands in a row has about the same effect -- it does not multiply. None of these effects are large enough to matter."
Snyder implies the same sort of thing when he says, "The problem with utilizing this type of strategy is that none of the advantage indicators are very strong. In most games, they would simply indicate that the house had less of an advantage over the player, not that the advantage had risen to a player advantage. In deeply dealt one-deck games, with good (Las Vegas Strip) rules, all of these indicators combined might provide the player who is making small bets of $5 and high bets of $100 (1-20 spread) with an expectation of about $1-$2 per hour. In other words, no individual situational indicator is worth more than a few hundredths of a percent, and all of them combined are not worth much more than a few tenths of a percent, in a deeply dealt one-deck game with a big betting spread."
ok, i mean i certainly wouldn't argue the fact with you, i'm just curious what research, simulation, what ever, just how did you come to that conclusion?
what ever, i think Dubey said he only ran about five million rounds, that would be nothing compared with what cv stuff could do.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
I ran these sims long ago and only remember the conclusion.sagefr0g said:right, what?, you'd need how many cumulative spread sheets and then i haven't the foggiest how many hard drives to hold them
long way of saying it's a logistical nightmare, lol.
maybe you'd need statistics applied to statistics as a heuristic, lol, i dunno.
QFIT, you replied to a post referencing Dubey's stuff before:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=135208&postcount=75
well, it seemed in that post that you are familiar with Dubey's stuff and i'd guess also Gwynn and Seri situational stuff, like Snyder talks about in this link: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm
long way of saying i'm just curious where you and maybe Snyder are getting information regarding such stuff.
like, ok in the one link you stated that "the effect of the last hand is very small -- extremely small in shoes. The effect does not accumulate in multiple hands. That is, losing a hand has a tiny impact on the next hand, assuming no intervening shuffle. Losing four hands in a row has about the same effect -- it does not multiply. None of these effects are large enough to matter."
Snyder implies the same sort of thing when he says, "The problem with utilizing this type of strategy is that none of the advantage indicators are very strong. In most games, they would simply indicate that the house had less of an advantage over the player, not that the advantage had risen to a player advantage. In deeply dealt one-deck games, with good (Las Vegas Strip) rules, all of these indicators combined might provide the player who is making small bets of $5 and high bets of $100 (1-20 spread) with an expectation of about $1-$2 per hour. In other words, no individual situational indicator is worth more than a few hundredths of a percent, and all of them combined are not worth much more than a few tenths of a percent, in a deeply dealt one-deck game with a big betting spread."
ok, i mean i certainly wouldn't argue the fact with you, i'm just curious what research, simulation, what ever, just how did you come to that conclusion?
what ever, i think Dubey said he only ran about five million rounds, that would be nothing compared with what cv stuff could do.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
did your conclusion on a quantitative level agree with Snyder where he states"...In deeply dealt one-deck games, with good (Las Vegas Strip) rules, all of these indicators combined might provide the player who is making small bets of $5 and high bets of $100 (1-20 spread) with an expectation of about $1-$2 per hour..."?QFIT said:
edit: ok, i know i'm probably becoming a pain, lol, sorry. just one more question please.
like for your tables depicted in the image in this link: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=2784&stc=1&d=1248841078
like i think your sims ran 320,000,000,000 rounds of play were simulated for the tables and charts
ok but, like for that image in the link above it must have been taken from fewer rounds, right?
how many rounds?
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
thank you for the reply.QFIT said:What's a "deeply dealt one-deck game, with good (Las Vegas Strip) rules?"
Sounds right.
No idea how many round were simmed in the BJStats sims. It's probably there somewhere. I ran those ages ago with CVSIM and no longer have anything to do with the site.
i think i'm comming up with circa 128,128,393 rounds for the hand type SD data going by the percentage distribution table for hand types and the number of hand types, like in the images below.
:whip: if i'm understanding what the percentage distribution stuff means.going by #total hands = (#partial hands/partial hands percentage of total hands)*100%
like for the two tables can i assume the number of rounds the data was taken from for the two images was the same?
(i know another question sorry :angel::whip
note: images from Blackjack Data Repository (Dead link: http://www.bjstats.com/bjre.asp)
Attachments
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
well 128,128,134 hands is better than Dubey's i think it was 5 million hand simulation.
so from the blackjack data repository from those images in this link
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=143251&postcount=17
i come up with 10,929,352 opportunities to predict a win after a hard double down out of 128,128,394 hands.
and from Dubey's table
the image in this link: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=2394&stc=1&d=1243378637
he claims for a single deck game (i'm not sure what rules & pen) you will win 1.2% more hands after a hard double down than you will lose.
so 51.2% of the hands after a hard double you win and 48.8% you lose, but that is ignoring pushs for hands played after a hard double down. i'm not sure how significant that would be.:whip:
but anyway if pushs don't matter and allowing the statistically low number trials that comprise Dubey's results, of the 10,929,382 hands you'd expect to win 5,595,828 and lose 5,333,554. the difference being 262,274 hands won to the good.
so (262,274hands/128,128,134hands)*100% = 0.20% .
so i think this means that for circa 128,128,134 hands that after a hard double down you'd have a 0.20% higher 'predictability' factor with respect to the prospects of winning a hand versus losing a hand than you would have if you just ignored that factor.
then there are other situational factors in Dubey's table that could be applied as well, just i haven't gotten around to examining those. lol, heck i'm not even sure if my reasoning is any where near reasonable on this issue.:whip:
so i guess maybe using cvdata stuff it might be possible to analyze Dubey's stuff, even if my reasoning above is wrong?:whip:
edit:
well i tried to figure for the cases of splits and soft double downs, i came up with 'predictability' factors of 0.02% for soft dd's and 0.13% for splits (although) the splits data doesn't separate ace splits (something Dubey warned against, as hands after ace splits are neg ev).
so in total the 'predictability' factor would be circa 0.35% for a single deck game.
so from the blackjack data repository from those images in this link
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=143251&postcount=17
i come up with 10,929,352 opportunities to predict a win after a hard double down out of 128,128,394 hands.
and from Dubey's table
the image in this link: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=2394&stc=1&d=1243378637
he claims for a single deck game (i'm not sure what rules & pen) you will win 1.2% more hands after a hard double down than you will lose.
so 51.2% of the hands after a hard double you win and 48.8% you lose, but that is ignoring pushs for hands played after a hard double down. i'm not sure how significant that would be.
:whip:but anyway if pushs don't matter and allowing the statistically low number trials that comprise Dubey's results, of the 10,929,382 hands you'd expect to win 5,595,828 and lose 5,333,554. the difference being 262,274 hands won to the good.
so (262,274hands/128,128,134hands)*100% = 0.20% .
so i think this means that for circa 128,128,134 hands that after a hard double down you'd have a 0.20% higher 'predictability' factor with respect to the prospects of winning a hand versus losing a hand than you would have if you just ignored that factor.
then there are other situational factors in Dubey's table that could be applied as well, just i haven't gotten around to examining those. lol, heck i'm not even sure if my reasoning is any where near reasonable on this issue.
:whip:so i guess maybe using cvdata stuff it might be possible to analyze Dubey's stuff, even if my reasoning above is wrong?
:whip:edit:
well i tried to figure for the cases of splits and soft double downs, i came up with 'predictability' factors of 0.02% for soft dd's and 0.13% for splits (although) the splits data doesn't separate ace splits (something Dubey warned against, as hands after ace splits are neg ev).
so in total the 'predictability' factor would be circa 0.35% for a single deck game.