starting disadvantage

[mjbballar23]

anyone have a fast way to calculate the starting disadvantage at my casino?
rules are: h17, das, double any 2 cards, rsa, no surrender, 6d....... the simulator on this site indicates a disadvantage of .66 but on CBJN those same rules are indicated at a disadvantage of .56........... i just dont know which one is right. any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Sonny]

The 0.56 sounds a little better to me. The BS engine on this site doesn't have the option for resplitting aces (since the BS doesn't change) so it is probably a little higher then what it should be. I believe that resplitting aces lowers the house edge by about 0.7% so that probably explains the difference.

-Sonny-

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html

 

[ihate17]

why do I come up with .53%

anyone have a fast way to calculate the starting disadvantage at my casino?
rules are: h17, das, double any 2 cards, rsa, no surrender, 6d....... the simulator on this site indicates a disadvantage of .66 but on CBJN those same rules are indicated at a disadvantage of .56........... i just dont know which one is right. any help would be greatly appreciated.

Not sure if I messed up.

ihate17

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Not sure if I messed up.

ihate17

no you did not mess up, WoO says .57

 

[k_c]

anyone have a fast way to calculate the starting disadvantage at my casino?
rules are: h17, das, double any 2 cards, rsa, no surrender, 6d....... the simulator on this site indicates a disadvantage of .66 but on CBJN those same rules are indicated at a disadvantage of .56........... i just dont know which one is right. any help would be greatly appreciated.

My program gets -.55%
any pair split to up to 4 hands including aces
no hitting split aces
Total dependent

k_c

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

My program gets -.55%
any pair split to up to 4 hands including aces
no hitting split aces
Total dependent

k_c

they will all vary due to rounding, but from what i have seen 90% are within .05 (which isnt very accurate actually, that can be more than 10% off if the edge is under .5)

0.54775% (assuming dealer shuffles after ever hand(favors player), composition dependent strategy)
0.57085% (assuming use of a cut card (favors house), total dependent strategy)

 

[k_c]

they will all vary due to rounding, but from what i have seen 90% are within .05 (which isnt very accurate actually, that can be more than 10% off if the edge is under .5)

0.54775% (assuming dealer shuffles after ever hand(favors player), composition dependent strategy)
0.57085% (assuming use of a cut card (favors house), total dependent strategy)

My comp dependent program gets -.5472%, which isn't much better than total dependent.

As far as the so called cut card effect, I don't believe in it. I believe any negative cut card effect is exactly offset by a positive floating advantage effect, leading to a conclusion that basic strategy EV is always correct absent any addtional knowledge. You're free to believe what you want though.

k_c

 

[Kasi]

My comp dependent program gets -.5472%, which isn't much better than total dependent.k_c

Would you happen to know if your program included comp-dependent hands up to any number of cards in that -.5472% return?

You know, weird stuff like 222222AAAA vs any dealer upcard, etc.

I was just wondering that 2 seconds ago in another thread!

 

[k_c]

Would you happen to know if your program included comp-dependent hands up to any number of cards in that -.5472% return?

You know, weird stuff like 222222AAAA vs any dealer upcard, etc.

I was just wondering that 2 seconds ago in another thread!

Yes, all weird stuff included .

k_c

 

[Kasi]

Yes, all weird stuff included .k_c

Thanks k_c!

Very much appreciated!

It verifies my assumption on the "optimal" return as given by the Wiz calculator!

No doubt completely accurate, and absolutely "correct", but, like so many other things, completely, utterly, useless from any practical point of view

But, although absolutely correct, in fact, quite likely, it could very well be very misleading, leading some to the conclusion that all one has to do is learn "comp-dependent" strategy to reduce the HA by whatever percentage.

That last sentence was for you Bob - comp-dependent startegy is not what I think you think it is cracked up to be.

But you make up your own mind. That's what I always did lol. And sometimes, I was like, "wish I had figured that out sooner" lol.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

My comp dependent program gets -.5472%, which isn't much better than total dependent.

As far as the so called cut card effect, I don't believe in it. I believe any negative cut card effect is exactly offset by a positive floating advantage effect, leading to a conclusion that basic strategy EV is always correct absent any addtional knowledge. You're free to believe what you want though.

k_c

you are kind of right, and by that i mean its negligible.. think about this, the difference is about .03 between total and composition right? how much of that .03 do you think is due to comp vs total? almost all of it i would say, which leaves way less than .01 left to the cut card effect.. oh btw, in case you didnt know, go to http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html and read the methodology at the bottom.. the total is calculated with a cut card, the composition is calculated with shuffle after every hand, so thats what i was talking about above with the .03 thing..

 

[k_c]

you are kind of right, and by that i mean its negligible.. think about this, the difference is about .03 between total and composition right? how much of that .03 do you think is due to comp vs total? almost all of it i would say, which leaves way less than .01 left to the cut card effect.. oh btw, in case you didnt know, go to http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html and read the methodology at the bottom.. the total is calculated with a cut card, the composition is calculated with shuffle after every hand, so thats what i was talking about above with the .03 thing..

I get:
-.5514% total dependent
-.5472% comp dependent
+.0042% using comp dependent instead of total dependent (not .03)
All .0042% is due to CD instead of TD

The theory of the cut card effect is that on the round that the cut card is encountered, it is more likely the shoe will be composed of less tens so player is playing at a bigger disadvantage. That may be true, but that means on the rounds before the cut card, he was playing at a lesser disadvantage, so his overall EV remains unchanged, in my opinion.

I'm not sure of the Wizard's methodology, but I suspect it is a sim since that's how the cut card effect would have to be measured. I'm using an exact calculation.

k_c

 

[k_c]

Thanks k_c!

Very much appreciated!

It verifies my assumption on the "optimal" return as given by the Wiz calculator!

No doubt completely accurate, and absolutely "correct", but, like so many other things, completely, utterly, useless from any practical point of view

But, although absolutely correct, in fact, quite likely, it could very well be very misleading, leading some to the conclusion that all one has to do is learn "comp-dependent" strategy to reduce the HA by whatever percentage.

That last sentence was for you Bob - comp-dependent startegy is not what I think you think it is cracked up to be.

But you make up your own mind. That's what I always did lol. And sometimes, I was like, "wish I had figured that out sooner" lol.

The greater the number of decks, the more comp dependent and tot dependent coincide. As you suggest, for 6 decks the difference is mainly academic.

k_c

 

[Kasi]

you are kind of right, and by that i mean its negligible.. think about this, the difference is about .03 between total and composition right? how much of that .03 do you think is due to comp vs total?

No big deal, and I know you know this, but, like k_c says, alot of people will think of 0.03 as meaning 3%. As opposed to 0.0003 or 0.03%.

And you are right. The difference of 0.0042 basically means it just ain't worth learning 8,9 & 10-card comp-dependent hands.

I know you're only 23 but you still won't live long enough for it to actually matter

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Thanks k_c!

Very much appreciated!

It verifies my assumption on the "optimal" return as given by the Wiz calculator!

No doubt completely accurate, and absolutely "correct", but, like so many other things, completely, utterly, useless from any practical point of view

But, although absolutely correct, in fact, quite likely, it could very well be very misleading, leading some to the conclusion that all one has to do is learn "comp-dependent" strategy to reduce the HA by whatever percentage.

That last sentence was for you Bob - comp-dependent startegy is not what I think you think it is cracked up to be.

But you make up your own mind. That's what I always did lol. And sometimes, I was like, "wish I had figured that out sooner" lol.

i am aware it is small, i know this, and most people dont need to scrap every little .01%, but i do, because i dont vary my bet, which is where you make like 70% of your money

I get:
-.5514% total dependent
-.5472% comp dependent
+.0042% using comp dependent instead of total dependent (not .03)
All .0042% is due to CD instead of TD

The theory of the cut card effect is that on the round that the cut card is encountered, it is more likely the shoe will be composed of less tens so player is playing at a bigger disadvantage. That may be true, but that means on the rounds before the cut card, he was playing at a lesser disadvantage, so his overall EV remains unchanged, in my opinion.

I'm not sure of the Wizard's methodology, but I suspect it is a sim since that's how the cut card effect would have to be measured. I'm using an exact calculation.

k_c

you didnt read what i wrote carefully.. the .03 is including the cut card vs csm thing that the wiz does.. like i said read the methodology on http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html.. thus i was saying, that the cut card effect is probably a good amount of that .03 difference, thus using cds probably gives +.01, and the csm effect gives like +.02 (remember, csm benefits the NON COUNTING player), meaning cds has a small effect.. some people might not read the footnote at the bottom of http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html in which case they would THINK that the difference is purely tds vs cds, which appears huge in single deck depending on the rules, but a good portion of that like i just said is csm vs cut card.. the wiz really shouldnt have done that, because nobody will know how much of the realistic vs optimal house edge difference is cut card vs csm, and how much is tds vs cds.. basically he has 2 variables which is foolish, but i guess he is just saying that the "at absolute lowest (csm + cds) the house edge would be this with these rules" and "at absolute highest (cut card + tds) the house edge would be this", but the problem with that is you dont know how much of it is cut card and how much is cds

 

[k_c]

i am aware it is small, i know this, and most people dont need to scrap every little .01%, but i do, because i dont vary my bet, which is where you make like 70% of your money



you didnt read what i wrote carefully.. the .03 is including the cut card vs csm thing that the wiz does.. like i said read the methodology on http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html.. thus i was saying, that the cut card effect is probably a good amount of that .03 difference, thus using cds probably gives +.01, and the csm effect gives like +.02 (remember, csm benefits the NON COUNTING player), meaning cds has a small effect.. some people might not read the footnote at the bottom of http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/house-edge-calculator.html in which case they would THINK that the difference is purely tds vs cds, which appears huge in single deck depending on the rules, but a good portion of that like i just said is csm vs cut card.. the wiz really shouldnt have done that, because nobody will know how much of the realistic vs optimal house edge difference is cut card vs csm, and how much is tds vs cds.. basically he has 2 variables which is foolish, but i guess he is just saying that the "at absolute lowest (csm + cds) the house edge would be this with these rules" and "at absolute highest (cut card + tds) the house edge would be this", but the problem with that is you dont know how much of it is cut card and how much is cds

I think the Wizard is saying that there is a .03% greater disadvantage when compared to basic strategy, completely due to the cut card effect, but as I said I don't believe in it. I think the correct measure of EV for a BS player is just that, the BS EV cut card or no cut card. It's just my opinion. You can believe what you want, no problem.

k_c