Request "for" "Advanced Sim" by Experienced person

jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
Not sure if this can be done, or exactly how one would go about it, or why someone would even want too, only to prove something they already know the answer to. But for the sake, to prove to those(me in general) than TCs are in no way influenced, by previous TCs (however extreme) I have proposed an experiment, through an advanced simulation, by a skilled person, that could be conducted for analysis.

Detail here Any takers?
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
freegamesX said:
I dont really understand what you want? can you be more precise, please?
What kind of "advanced simulation"?
Click to expand...
Objective: Is to determine, whether or not, previous TCs have any kind of influence on other TC's, however small the difference may be.

Example1: So lets take an extreme example of "let's say" where a TC in round one is -4. But after "that" round is finished it has now Risen to +4

Example2: Now lets compare, example2 to example1, but this time were going to start the round with a TC of +12, except this time the TC Drops to +4

The only data, that is relevant here is comparing the results, from example1 and example2, from TC's that BOTH start from +4. Except in BOTH scenarios, one TC has risen, while the other has fallen.

My only guess, is that a series of sub sims, would have to be performed before even one of the two, primary simulations, could be performed. Then we would compare the two primary sims to one another to see, if theres any difference.

I know, its a tall order, and I dont expext anyone to undertake it, but thanklyou for youe response.
 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
Yes there would be a difference. Because of the fact that a +12 is more likely deep in the shoe and deep in the shoe TCs are more volatile.
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
its only an extreme example

QFIT said:
Yes there would be a difference. Because of the fact that a +12 is more likely deep in the shoe and deep in the shoe TCs are more volatile.
Click to expand...


I understand that. But unless im mistaken, your basing this conclusion only on the theory, that the floating advantage is playing a role?


If so, lets forget about FA, for the moment. What im asking is, is it possible(say anywhere in the deck) that an over abundance of "either" "High cards" or "Small cards" which in effect, caused the TC, to change drastically over one round of play, influence the current TC, depending on which direction the TC came from? however insignificant the diffirence may be. And however insignificant the change in TC was from one round to another.

In other words, im curious or playing a hunch, that the TC, that rose from -4 to +4 would be slighlty stronger, than the one that dropped, because of the fact, that there was abundance of little cards. Keep in mind, im just using these TCs as an extreme example.

Also, provided i explained my question clearly enough of course, is there a way to set CVdata up for this kind of project?
 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
No, not basing it on FA.

There are several factors at play. The first I mentioned. Another is that counts are more likely to increase substantially in a round than decrease. This is because you are more likely to have a lot of small cards than a lot of large cards, since large cards tend to stop hits.

I can't think of a general way to set this up in CVData.
 
A

assume_R

Well-Known Member
QFIT said:
counts are more likely to increase substantially in a round than decrease. This is because you are more likely to have a lot of small cards than a lot of large cards, since large cards tend to stop hits.
Click to expand...
Never thought about that - that's interesting. Could an experienced card counter use that information for his advantage? Somehow changing his decisions based on that fact? Or is it just interesting knowledge?
 
QFIT

QFIT

Well-Known Member
assume_R said:
Never thought about that - that's interesting. Could an experienced card counter use that information for his advantage? Somehow changing his decisions based on that fact? Or is it just interesting knowledge?
Click to expand...
Just interesting. On average, the TC will still stay the same.
 
N

Nynefingers

Well-Known Member
jack said:
In other words, im curious or playing a hunch, that the TC, that rose from -4 to +4 would be slighlty stronger, than the one that dropped, because of the fact, that there was abundance of little cards.
Click to expand...
If the TC is +4, then there has been an abundance of little cards, period. Consider the following two scenarios for the first three rounds of a six deck shoe, with a full table:

(The first number is the number of cards seen, the second is the RC for that round)
Code: 
             Scenario 1     Scenario 2
Round 1       25, +12        25, +12
Round 2       14, -10        26, +17
Round 3       26, +17        14, -10
Round 4 is now beginning. Which scenario is preferable going forward? Does it matter whether the round with all the big cards was round 2 or round 3? I believe this is more the situation you are discussing, rather than the more subtle effects Qfit mentioned. In this type of situation, I would be extremely surprised if you could prove it made one bit of difference. In fact, none of the cards came out on Round 1, Round 2, or Round 3. They all came out on Round Past. All we care is that we have seen the cards. When we saw them has no effect if we are only counting.
 
Dog Hand

Dog Hand

Well-Known Member
jack said:
Not sure if this can be done, or exactly how one would go about it, or why someone would even want too, only to prove something they already know the answer to. But for the sake, to prove to those(me in general) than TCs are in no way influenced, by previous TCs (however extreme) I have proposed an experiment, through an advanced simulation, by a skilled person, that could be conducted for analysis.

Detail here Any takers?
Click to expand...
jack,jackson,

I ran a 10-billion-round sims for two HiLo counters playing a 6D, S17, DA2, DAS game with 5.5/6 pen (don't you wish we could FIND such a game?). The first player flat-bets 1 unit from the start of each shoe until the TC reaches or exceeds +12, at which point he flat-bets 2 units. He continues to bet 2 units until either the shoe ends (and he reverts to 1 unit) or the TC falls to +4, at which point he bets 3 units for EXACTLY one round, then bets 4 until the end of the shoe. This complicated betting scheme is possible by using an "advanced" betting strategy in CVData, and allows us to pinpoint the first +4 TC round that occurs AFTER a +12 or higher TC round in the same shoe.

The second player's betting strategy is rearranged: he flat-bets 1 unit from the start of each shoe until the TC falls to -8 or lower, then he flat-bets 2 units until the TC rises to +4, then he bets 3 units for one round, and then he bets 4 units until the end of the shoe.

Now all we need do is compare the players' EV's for the 3-unit bets. Player 1 (falling TC) bet 3 units 649,308 times (out of 10,282,233,152 hands) with an Advantage of 2.146% (s.d. of 0.14). Player 2 (rising TC) bet 3 units 206,153 times (out of 10,282,255,088 hands) with an Advantage of 2.505% (s.d. of 0.25).

These results seem to indicate that a +4 TC is more valuable if the TC rises to +4, rather than falls to +4.

By the way, this sim took a long, Long, LONG, L-O-O-O-O-O-NG time to run ;-)

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand
 
jack.jackson

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
Dog Hand said:
jack,jackson,

I ran a 10-billion-round sims for two HiLo counters playing a 6D, S17, DA2, DAS game with 5.5/6 pen (don't you wish we could FIND such a game?). The first player flat-bets 1 unit from the start of each shoe until the TC reaches or exceeds +12, at which point he flat-bets 2 units. He continues to bet 2 units until either the shoe ends (and he reverts to 1 unit) or the TC falls to +4, at which point he bets 3 units for EXACTLY one round, then bets 4 until the end of the shoe. This complicated betting scheme is possible by using an "advanced" betting strategy in CVData, and allows us to pinpoint the first +4 TC round that occurs AFTER a +12 or higher TC round in the same shoe.

The second player's betting strategy is rearranged: he flat-bets 1 unit from the start of each shoe until the TC falls to -8 or lower, then he flat-bets 2 units until the TC rises to +4, then he bets 3 units for one round, and then he bets 4 units until the end of the shoe.

Now all we need do is compare the players' EV's for the 3-unit bets. Player 1 (falling TC) bet 3 units 649,308 times (out of 10,282,233,152 hands) with an Advantage of 2.146% (s.d. of 0.14). Player 2 (rising TC) bet 3 units 206,153 times (out of 10,282,255,088 hands) with an Advantage of 2.505% (s.d. of 0.25).

These results seem to indicate that a +4 TC is more valuable if the TC rises to +4, rather than falls to +4.

By the way, this sim took a long, Long, LONG, L-O-O-O-O-O-NG time to run ;-)

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand
Click to expand...
Just what I expected. This is very interesting Data. This could very well prove that somehow the cards remain slightly at a constant value. And yes, over the years, I have slightly deviated My play based on whether the TC had fallen or risen, especially when it comes to border line plays, in both play of hands and betting. Of course it all depends, but it seems to pan out pretty good. But unless your pretty experencied, its best you probably dont attempt this.

Thanks for running the sims. I guess we'll coin this the "Dog-Hand" effect in your Honor =) Hey, that kinda fits it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top