Playing efficiency and Single Deck BJ

[KounterStrike]

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]

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?

Oh, hell no. You can barely beat a regular single deck game.

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

 

[FLASH1296]

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.

 

[standard toaster]

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?

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]

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

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.

 

[standard toaster]

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.

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

 

[bjcount]

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

 

[bjcount]

And heres a quick flat bet:
top is 3:2
bottom is 6:5

BJC

 

[FLASH1296]

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.

 

[bjcount]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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."

 

[bjcount]

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 !

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]

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 !

Cool counts!

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

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

 

[bjcount]

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 !

Results are in.
top is 1st set of tags (HO2A)
SD, 3:2 BJ

 

[bjcount]

and with 6:5 bj

very very very long run

 

[bjcount]

same rules in all sims, no side counts.
only difference is bj payout 6:5 vs 3:2

BJC