Weekend Warriors II
- Thread starter jack.jackson
- Start date
yeah, i'm catchin on slowly but surely lmao.
this is like the question i was asking before. where my flat bet sim (but still using I18) comes out with a lower W/L% than the basic strategy engine gives for the house edge.
i guess i can see some of the differance is that indices are being used. but still i wouldn't think I18 indices would make that much differance.
like the flat bet spread sheet shows a W/L% of -0.334% and the basic strategy engine (this site) gives -0.55% house edge.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bjbse.php?numdecks=2+decks&soft17=s17&dbl=d10&das=no&surr=ns&peek=yes
wonderin what the differance is?
maybe i didn't do the spread sheet changes right? or maybe there's a fundamental differance in house edge per the basic strategy engine and the sim's EV for a flat bet basic strategy player using indices?
this is like the question i was asking before. where my flat bet sim (but still using I18) comes out with a lower W/L% than the basic strategy engine gives for the house edge.
i guess i can see some of the differance is that indices are being used. but still i wouldn't think I18 indices would make that much differance.
like the flat bet spread sheet shows a W/L% of -0.334% and the basic strategy engine (this site) gives -0.55% house edge.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bjbse.php?numdecks=2+decks&soft17=s17&dbl=d10&das=no&surr=ns&peek=yes
wonderin what the differance is?
maybe i didn't do the spread sheet changes right? or maybe there's a fundamental differance in house edge per the basic strategy engine and the sim's EV for a flat bet basic strategy player using indices?
I don't know - I get a little outside one stan dev. Maybe 1.25 or so for the 10,000 hands? Assuming a flat-bet every hand lol.
So, a BS player, would do this good or better 1 in 10 times maybe?
Looks like that's about what The Wise One got?
Whatever, nice when it happens. Maybe even nicer to know, it's no big deal when it does happen.
So, a BS player, would do this good or better 1 in 10 times maybe?
Looks like that's about what The Wise One got?
Whatever, nice when it happens. Maybe even nicer to know, it's no big deal when it does happen.
Well, for one, the 10000 hands might actually only be 9000 hands from a BS point of view since doubles and splits may be included in that 10,000 hand total.
Like a 0.43% HA may only be a 0.38% HA from the point of vie of total dollars wagered.
All that element of risk stuff.
Indexes would make a difference too.
I don't know - I think CVDATA strictly uses "rounds" (per dealer upcard) ie initial wager, but CVCX uses "hands". So the former counts 4 hands that are split and doubled as one "round" and $1 initially wagered but the latter would count it as 4 hands and $8 wagered.
BS HA would be based on you played 1 round and wagered $1 initially and take into account that sometimes that initial $1 turned into 4 hands and $8 wagewred and express the HA as the % of that initial $1 you wagered.
If the HA is 0.5% and you wager $1 for 10,000 "rounds", you have lost $50 EV. Even though you may have likely wagered $11,000 due to doubles and splits.
Don't know if that helps lol.
OK - here's my totally unrelated question I only know 1D and 4D Hi-Lo indexes - which should I use when I start to join this crazy coin-flipping stuff anyway? Which would be better? Anybody generate 2D indexes? I've never seen them lol. Not that it matters much lol.
Like a 0.43% HA may only be a 0.38% HA from the point of vie of total dollars wagered.
All that element of risk stuff.
Indexes would make a difference too.
I don't know - I think CVDATA strictly uses "rounds" (per dealer upcard) ie initial wager, but CVCX uses "hands". So the former counts 4 hands that are split and doubled as one "round" and $1 initially wagered but the latter would count it as 4 hands and $8 wagered.
BS HA would be based on you played 1 round and wagered $1 initially and take into account that sometimes that initial $1 turned into 4 hands and $8 wagewred and express the HA as the % of that initial $1 you wagered.
If the HA is 0.5% and you wager $1 for 10,000 "rounds", you have lost $50 EV. Even though you may have likely wagered $11,000 due to doubles and splits.
Don't know if that helps lol.
OK - here's my totally unrelated question I only know 1D and 4D Hi-Lo indexes - which should I use when I start to join this crazy coin-flipping stuff anyway? Which would be better? Anybody generate 2D indexes? I've never seen them lol. Not that it matters much lol.
Ill get started on those 2deck indices for ya For the record however, I think the 4D indices would be a better fit. At first I thought, you meant 2deck calibrated indices. I was like oh chit Ill make them for these adverse rules as well, oppossed to the one size fits all. Just for the fun of it, Im gonna have one set, for our rules, then compare the effects to a set, of DA2,NDAS, to see just how much lower the splitting indices would be, since DA2, is allowed.
Ive been raisin mine, by about two. For example, 66v4(NDAS) is -4, but since D10 is enabled, i play it @ -2
Anyway im gonna try my best, to be ahead of my flat-bets@20,000k hands. Wish me luck.
For the record however, I think the 4D indices would be a better fit. At first I thought, you meant 2deck calibrated indices. I was like oh chit Ill make them for these adverse rules as well, oppossed to the one size fits all. Just for the fun of it, Im gonna have one set, for our rules, then compare the effects to a set, of DA2,NDAS, to see just how much lower the splitting indices would be, since DA2, is allowed.Ive been raisin mine, by about two. For example, 66v4(NDAS) is -4, but since D10 is enabled, i play it @ -2
Anyway im gonna try my best, to be ahead of my flat-bets@20,000k hands. Wish me luck.
Last edited:
Mr. fr0g got me interested in the effect of index plays with flat betting. I don’t do HiLo, or the I18, so I used the KO Preferred indexes. Here are the results of a 500 million round sim of our game, with Player #2 using indexes, and Player #1 not. Both are flat-betting.
500000000 rounds Bankroll = 10000
1: $-.0585874/$10 =-.585874% var = 121.4211 ROR = 100%!!
2: $-.045008/$10 =-.45008% var = 121.9308 ROR = 100%!!
So, using indexes while flat-betting seems to be worth about 0.136%, in this case.
As far as I know, Player #1’s result should have been either -.55% or -.5416%, and it’s troublesome that his -.586% is so much worse than that. Could that have been the result of having another player at the table? (Although I don’t see how, really.) If not, then I didn’t run enough rounds, or I messed up somewhere in setting up the sim.
500000000 rounds Bankroll = 10000
1: $-.0585874/$10 =-.585874% var = 121.4211 ROR = 100%!!
2: $-.045008/$10 =-.45008% var = 121.9308 ROR = 100%!!
So, using indexes while flat-betting seems to be worth about 0.136%, in this case.
As far as I know, Player #1’s result should have been either -.55% or -.5416%, and it’s troublesome that his -.586% is so much worse than that. Could that have been the result of having another player at the table? (Although I don’t see how, really.) If not, then I didn’t run enough rounds, or I messed up somewhere in setting up the sim.
Could be the effect known as "the cut card effect." I wrote a post on the data in my exact pre-deal calculation sims but I lost it because I was caught in a login/relogin loop, so I'll just leave it at that.
It's a good idea to copy your post to Notepad before previewing. Otherwise it can be lost, just as mine was.
It's a good idea to copy your post to Notepad before previewing. Otherwise it can be lost, just as mine was.
thanks much for evaluating it. hasn't all sunk in yet but it gives me some ammuniton to throw at it while trying to think about it.
well i think if your using hi/lo we was supposed to be using I18. lmao and when i suggested that i didn't realize for this WWII game rules that doesn't leave a hell ova lot of the illustrious ones to play. :laugh: maybe now it's the illustrious 5 or something like that.
but what ever i guess it would be the multiple deck ones whats left of them. :whip:
just flip a coin see what you come up with. :devil:
well i think if your using hi/lo we was supposed to be using I18. lmao and when i suggested that i didn't realize for this WWII game rules that doesn't leave a hell ova lot of the illustrious ones to play. :laugh: maybe now it's the illustrious 5 or something like that.
but what ever i guess it would be the multiple deck ones whats left of them. :whip:
just flip a coin see what you come up with. :devil:
That's cool - I like it. I'd call that a pretty big reduction lol.
If you feel like it, what if the index player sat at 3rd with a full table of BS flat-bet players? No big deal just wondered if/how much better it might be in that case.
I don't know - I suppose it'd be worth more at deeper pen levels too?
This stuff is important for card-counting cowards, fuzzy or otherwise lol, index using, mostly flat-betting, -EV players like myself
If you feel like it, what if the index player sat at 3rd with a full table of BS flat-bet players? No big deal just wondered if/how much better it might be in that case.
I don't know - I suppose it'd be worth more at deeper pen levels too?
This stuff is important for card-counting cowards, fuzzy or otherwise lol, index using, mostly flat-betting, -EV players like myself
My average pre-round EV has dropped from -.5484% at 301 shoes/3922 rounds (my latest posted update) to -.6096% at 445 shoe/5799 rounds. I cannot sim a large number of shoes/rounds because it takes time to calculate each pre-round EV. These are actual pre-round values for a basic strategy player though, and I'm sure they are accurate so the figure you got is probably not out of line. One thing is for sure: there can be some shoes where average pre-round EV is very low. I see instances where it sometimes is less than -10%. However, when I add data that contains a lot of these shoes the flat bettor often times, but not always, tends to do better than expected. This isn't surprising because shoes such as these indicate that on balance more high cards than low are being dealt despite the fact that it is unlikely. At present after 445 shoe/5799 rounds, a flat bettor is up 47 units in my sims. I have no idea where this process will lead as more data is added.
Blackjack's a strange game with an awful lot of possbilites.
This time I put it Notepad first!
Blackjack's a strange game with an awful lot of possbilites.
Canceler said:
If my post is going to be more than a couple sentences, I type it in Word first, then paste it into my reply.
Sorry I haven't been reporting in, but I just got back from Atlantic City. Blackjack is such an exciting game to play. You just never know what is going to happen. Monday I played a couple of hours and won $400. Yesterday, I played 17 hours (5 sessions) and lost $900. Today I played an hour and a half and won $1,500 in two short sessions (one hour/$500 and half an hour/$1,000). Unfortunately, I lost $800 over the course of three days playing Deuces Wild video poker, so I only managed to net $200. Add to that about $300 in comps and that's not so bad. I wonder if I should kiss VP goodbye? I did win a $500 pull (4 deuces with an ace) on a quarter machine, but I guess I got a little ambitious playing the $5 machine. lol I guess I've done pretty well getting the "gamble" out of my blackjack, but not so good getting the gamble out of my life. Oh, well! Back to the drawing board. I guess some who accused me of being a compulsive gambler back in the early days of my counting career may have been right--I just couldn't recognize it at the time. Well, that's life--there's always something new to work on.
lol I guess I've done pretty well getting the "gamble" out of my blackjack, but not so good getting the gamble out of my life. Oh, well! Back to the drawing board. I guess some who accused me of being a compulsive gambler back in the early days of my counting career may have been right--I just couldn't recognize it at the time. Well, that's life--there's always something new to work on.
aslan said:
Sorry I haven't been reporting in, but I just got back from Atlantic City. Blackjack is such an exciting game to play. You just never know what is going to happen. Monday I played a couple of hours and won $400. Yesterday, I played 17 hours (5 sessions) and lost $900. Today I played an hour and a half and won $1,500 in two short sessions (one hour/$500 and half an hour/$1,000). Unfortunately, I lost $800 over the course of three days playing Deuces Wild video poker, so I only managed to net $200. Add to that about $300 in comps and that's not so bad. I wonder if I should kiss VP goodbye? I did win a $500 pull (4 deuces with an ace) on a quarter machine, but I guess I got a little ambitious playing the $5 machine. lol I guess I've done pretty well getting the "gamble" out of my blackjack, but not so good getting the gamble out of my life. Oh, well! Back to the drawing board. I guess some who accused me of being a compulsive gambler back in the early days of my counting career may have been right--I just couldn't recognize it at the time. Well, that's life--there's always something new to work on.
lol I guess I've done pretty well getting the "gamble" out of my blackjack, but not so good getting the gamble out of my life. Oh, well! Back to the drawing board. I guess some who accused me of being a compulsive gambler back in the early days of my counting career may have been right--I just couldn't recognize it at the time. Well, that's life--there's always something new to work on.
Was you playing those AC 8deckers? Those are tough to beat. Were you Wongin? What were the rules/pen? Just curious,lol.
Lol, I know your smart enough, not to play Video poker. You must do it, because:
a)its only a quarter, and you can afford it.
b) has a 100% payback.
c) you simply enjoy it.
If a,b, and/or c, isnt on your list, then no you shouldnt play it.
Oh ya, congrats/cheers/hats-off on your warrior trip.
Last edited:
No, I was playing the 6 deckers. They do not allow wonging in on many of the $25 tables, but occasionally you can find a place to backcount. What I do is find a table where the pen is within reach, 70% or better, and play all until the pen goes down the tubes, or if I'm winning, until the cards start going downhill. In other words, I like to lock in my winnings. I have noticed that on any given table the winning and losing seems to go back and forth, with one time in a hundred going north or south continuously. I find if I play a table long enough, I generally give back a good deal of my winnings due to this ebb and flow. And when I am already winning good, I'm not as concerned about finding that one in a hundred winning streak as I am in just keeping what I've got. So I take a break and move to another table. One big thing in my play now is to keep my mind as fresh as possible, which means plenty of sleep and rest between tables if I feel a little tired. When I occasionally lose count, that's my sign that I need to pull up and get some rest. Also, I won't allow myself to play if I get that "whining" feeling, which I view as a losing feeling (Oh, woe is me! Everything happens to me! lol). I don't think anyone can be on the top of his game with such negativity bouncing around in his head.
I know that some of the above sounds like voodoo. It is true that you could change tables constantly and start out loser on every table. But it seems more grating on my nerves and attitude to stay at a losing table, digging in my heels as my bankroll dwindles away. With the change tables routine with rest in between as needed, I have the ability to keep my attitude positive and consequently to stay on top of my game. I also avoid negative dealers and players like a plague. Positive, Positive. Positive. That's my mantra.
I agree with your VP assessment, although you have to be careful about the 100% payback idea--many machines have payoffs that actually reduce to payback to 95% or even 90%. The bad is that I got bored with 25 cent machines and tried my "luck" at $5 machines. Yikes! Yes, Aslan, you do have a bit of compulsive gambler in you. But to your credit you do disguise it quite well. That is, you know it's a bad thing, so at least now that it's out in the open you have a chance to deal with it. Say, speaking of $5 Deuces Wild, does anyone know how to figure out the required bankroll for this level of play? $25 a pull can eat up some significant cash fast!
I know that some of the above sounds like voodoo. It is true that you could change tables constantly and start out loser on every table. But it seems more grating on my nerves and attitude to stay at a losing table, digging in my heels as my bankroll dwindles away. With the change tables routine with rest in between as needed, I have the ability to keep my attitude positive and consequently to stay on top of my game. I also avoid negative dealers and players like a plague. Positive, Positive. Positive. That's my mantra.
I agree with your VP assessment, although you have to be careful about the 100% payback idea--many machines have payoffs that actually reduce to payback to 95% or even 90%. The bad is that I got bored with 25 cent machines and tried my "luck" at $5 machines. Yikes! Yes, Aslan, you do have a bit of compulsive gambler in you. But to your credit you do disguise it quite well. That is, you know it's a bad thing, so at least now that it's out in the open you have a chance to deal with it. Say, speaking of $5 Deuces Wild, does anyone know how to figure out the required bankroll for this level of play? $25 a pull can eat up some significant cash fast!
Last edited: