Losing in positive counts is becoming all too familiar

[Kasi]

... $17 per 100 is terrible when you concider your max bet.. .

Or, make twice that an hour playing the same game with the same max bet with a lot less ROR.

Anyway, I think CVdata does actual sims and generates a huge amount of info about it where as CVCX has a lot of canned sims and you can enter your own variations and it spits out some basic info that can be useful for comparison purposes. CVData may not generate optimal bet ramps, not sure.

Could be way off here since, like I said, I don't have either.

 

[aslan]

So, you finally called my bluff lol?!

I'd recommend one but I don't have any.

Or, as my mother said, do as I say don't do as I do lol.

Although I admit I'm prejudiced toward Norm's products.

Others may have actual use of various products to comment on.

Gotcha, Kasi!.....:laugh: ...:dog:

 

[Sonny]

In answering Aslan's question, could someone also explain the difference between CVCX and CVData.

CVCX is a basic simulator that will handle most situations. You can adjust the rules of the game, bet spread, bankroll, penetration, etc. It will also show you what the optimal bet/bankroll is. It has all of the features most people will need. If you liked Chapter 10 of Blackjack Attack, you will love this program.

CVData is much more in depth. You can program any deck composition, crazy side bets, BJ variations, unusual payouts, strange cover betting strategies, etc. It pretty much does it all.

You can find the features of each program listed on the Qfit website.

-Sonny-

 

[aslan]

CVCX is a basic simulator that will handle most situations. You can adjust the rules of the game, bet spread, bankroll, penetration, etc. It will also show you what the optimal bet/bankroll is. It has all of the features most people will need. If you liked Chapter 10 of Blackjack Attack, you will love this program.

CVData is much more in depth. You can program any deck composition, crazy side bets, BJ variations, unusual payouts, strange cover betting strategies, etc. It pretty much does it all.

You can find the features of each program listed on the Qfit website.

-Sonny-

Thank you. :dog:

 

[jack.jackson]

For RC's of -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4 I bet in units, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10.

Im just curious? Do you still visualize your RC in a vertical line?

At what point are you switchin to two hands?

 

[aslan]

Im just curious? Do you still visualize your RC in a vertical line?

At what point are you switchin to two hands?

I visualize my RC as a steep slope uphill from left to right (I'm left handed if that matters). I use a modified running count. For 6-deck it begins at an initial running count of 80. My key count is 96 and my pivot point is 104. Has this changed?

I recently have found it profitable to play two hands all the time. I need to know what the sims say, but the experience has been that two hands work well in negative counts, one hand often offsetting the other, and make it easy to ramp up in positive counts. I recall some saying it is best to limit two hand play solely to positive counts, which I would have done had my actual experience gone south. Who needs double the trouble?

 

[EasyRhino]

If there are other people at the table, then do NOT play multiple hands in negative counts. You want them to eat the negative cards, not you.

If you're playing heads up, then playing two hands all the time, and ramping the same is BASICALLY like just playing one hand all the time. A little less variance per hand, and also opportunity for the count to shift more during one hand because more cards get used.

 

[mjbballar23]

If there are other people at the table, then do NOT play multiple hands in negative counts. You want them to eat the negative cards, not you.

If you're playing heads up, then playing two hands all the time, and ramping the same is BASICALLY like just playing one hand all the time. A little less variance per hand, and also opportunity for the count to shift more during one hand because more cards get used.

i thought i had heard that when playing heads up, to only play 1 hand unless you knew it was the last hand before the shuffle and in that case to play 3 hands(assuming a positive count) in order to increase deck penetration? Whats the reason for only playing 1 hand instead of 2 while playing heads up?

 

[EasyRhino]

If heads-up, playing one hand gives you a little bit finer resolution in your count, and allows more rapid (and perhaps smaller) bet adjustments.

 

[Kasi]

And while the short-term is extremely erratic, long-term results will always converge towards your cumulative win rate. they must.

Just made me wonder, as a point for discussion, all the reasons why one's expected win rate might be less than what you thought it was when you ran that sim or took something from a book.

How important is it to try to understand the underlying assumptions that produced that win rate?

Are you flooring, truncating or rounding TC's?

Are they based on full-deck, half-deck or less estimates?

Do they assume a certain number of players at the table?

Is it assuming you are playing with I18 indexes? If it is, do you always split your 10's?

Is it imitating how you actually bet in real life or is it always jumping and reducing bets when called for?

If wonging in or out how many hands an hour does it assume you actually play and is that how it actually is?

Not to mention any camo and basic ramps, etc.

 

[Kasi]

i thought i had heard that when playing heads up, to only play 1 hand unless you knew it was the last hand before the shuffle and in that case to play 3 hands(assuming a positive count) in order to increase deck penetration? Whats the reason for only playing 1 hand instead of 2 while playing heads up?

I also thought that when playing heads up, and assuming you don't spread to more hands except on your max bet, that you will get more money on the table by doing that than by playing 2 hands. I guess due to more cards per round being used and fewer opportunities of max bet that, when they do happen, you'd only be betting 50% more, or less, anyway.

But with 1 or 2 other players, go ahead and bet 2 hands.

Anyway I don't think it costs very much if you never spread, maybe depending at what point you make your max bet.

 

[sagefr0g]

i thought i had heard that when playing heads up, to only play 1 hand unless you knew it was the last hand before the shuffle and in that case to play 3 hands(assuming a positive count) in order to increase deck penetration? Whats the reason for only playing 1 hand instead of 2 while playing heads up?

part of the reason is that if you were to play two hands and you are at a disadvantage this means you would be betting twice as much when you have a disadvantage.

 

[mjbballar23]

part of the reason is that if you were to play two hands and you are at a disadvantage this means you would be betting twice as much when you have a disadvantage.

yes this is true but i was talking about when the count is positive.

 

[sagefr0g]

yes this is true but i was talking about when the count is positive.

well it's difficult and rare to be able to wong in on a one on one situation unless it just happens to be that all the patrons have abandoned the table so by the nature of one on one play you are going to play a considerable number of negative rounds. wouldn't want to play two hands then.
but really unless your max optimal bet is limited by the table maximun then playing one hand is about the same as playing two hands when head to head with the dealer. thats how Wong puts it in Professional Blackjack.

 

[Kasi]

yes this is true but i was talking about when the count is positive.

I probably wasn't very clear.

I think most people only spread to multiple hands when a max bet is called for.
Anyway that's what I assumed.

So, given that, the fundamental reason is that you get more money on the table playing only 1 hand when heads up compared to 2 hands.

I also assumed that when you do spread to multiple hands you don't double your max bet but bet an amount that keeps your original ROR the same - so maybe 50% more total bet or so over 2 hands.

In any given game TC's will occur at a certain frequency whether you are max betting, playing all or wonging in whatever way or not.

So, I suppose you can always make the assumptions of x-cards per hand, hands per round and therefore cards per round given how many players and determine which option gets the most money on the table given your 1-hand bet and proper amounts bet when spreading to keep ROR the same.

Basically, I believe it's just as you say, only play one hand when heads up. You will get more money on the table that way. Unless, also like you say, you know it's the last round of a positive shoe.

 

[mjbballar23]

playing heads up

well it's difficult and rare to be able to wong in on a one on one situation unless it just happens to be that all the patrons have abandoned the table so by the nature of one on one play you are going to play a considerable number of negative rounds. wouldn't want to play two hands then.
but really unless your max optimal bet is limited by the table maximun then playing one hand is about the same as playing two hands when head to head with the dealer. thats how Wong puts it in Professional Blackjack.

ok so if im am limited by the table maximum while playing heads up, then i would benefit from spreading to multiple hands? I encounter this situation often so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

[EasyRhino]

Well sure, we go back and forth about two hands vs. one, but the fundamental rule of thumb stands: Two hands at 75% is roughly equivalent to one hand at 100%.

So let's say you're feeling constrained by a $100 table limit. If you play two hands at $100 each, that's roughly equivalent to a single bet of $133. So you are getting a net increase in money on the table.

 

[Kasi]

ok so if im am limited by the table maximum while playing heads up, then i would benefit from spreading to multiple hands? I encounter this situation often so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Well, if u get real specific, it might be possible to at least make a guess that might seem like it might make sense. Even if it actually doesn't lol.

All of which begs the question why you would even want to be betting more than table max in the first place. As opposed to betting in a way that takes into account that table max in the first place. I mean if it happens so often, why not adjust to it with a different spread etc?

But, without that table-max constraint I don't understand in the first place, I'd say, in general, good chance don't spread while playing heads up. You likely may actually be getting less money in play if you do.