why DD over 6D

[k_c]

True.


Not totally. The KO pivot point of +4 is exactly equal to a HiLo TC of +4. In order for this magical confluence to happen, you need to start at the standard IRC I described above. That's my logic!

I think what you're getting at is that the KO pivot point count that is relatively equivalent to a Hi-Lo true count of +4 = 4*decks given that initial running count is started = 0. By starting IRC = -4*decks+4 then pivot point will always = +4.

By the same logic one could define IRC = -4*decks+10 and then pivot point count would always = +10 and your "magical confluence" point now equals +10.

 

[aslan]

Excellent points, and given the generally inferior rules a DD game has to have better than average penetration to be better than a commonly available 6D game. So "DD over 6D" only applies sometimes, for this plus the reasons you mention.

Yes! DD sucks bigtime with poor pen. Unless you get good pen, stick with the 6 deck, but nothing is sweeter than DD with great pen ('cept maybe, single deck, which I have no experience at).

 

[Canceler]

By the same logic one could define IRC = -4*decks+10 and then pivot point count would always = +10 and your "magical confluence" point now equals +10.

Then KO +10 would equal TC +4. Kind of takes some of the magic out of it. But never mind that, it's not important.

All I'm saying is it would nice if your program defaulted to the usual KO IRCs.

It's been fun, but I think I've gone as far as I'm going to go with this.

 

[k_c]

Then KO +10 would equal TC +4. Kind of takes some of the magic out of it. But never mind that, it's not important.

All I'm saying is it would nice if your program defaulted to the usual KO IRCs.

It's been fun, but I think I've gone as far as I'm going to go with this.

No problem. Thank you for the feedback. If I create a new version I will try to include an option for a user to be able to configure a default pivot point value of their own choosing for an unbalanced count and also have the program remember what the user has chosen so that it is displayed whenever that count is displayed.

The program would work backwards from the default pivot to get IRC for any number of decks:
IRC = -4*decks + default pivot value

As the program is written now all counts default to true counted, so the user needs to reinput their IRC of choice each time the program is started or number of decks is changed should they choose to use an unbalanced count.

cheers,

:grin:

 

[Canceler]

If I create a new version I will try to include an option for a user to be able to configure a default pivot point value of their own choosing for an unbalanced count and also have the program remember what the user has chosen so that it is displayed whenever that count is displayed.

That sounds good!

[/DERAILMENT]

 

[EmeraldCityBJ]

Getting back to the original question about "why DD over 6D" is often recommended, I can think of a couple reasons:

1) Players cannot handle short term variance. A high count in a DD game often only lasts a couple hands before the shuffle. The number of big bets won/lost before a shuffle is usually not significant. However, with a shoe, it's more common to play several consecutive hands in a high count, and some of the negative swings a player can encounter in a single shoe can be pretty brutal. Players who are not used to this sort of variance and players who are overbetting their bankroll will naturally gravitate toward the double-deck games.

2) Players are not patient enough for shoes. On double-deck, the time from one high count to the next is typically only a few minutes. On a shoe, you frequently have to wait a half hour or more before making your first +EV bet. Some players cannot handle the grind of backcounting or placing small bets on a shoe game while waiting for the +EV situation to come up.

 

[Deathclutch]

DD over 6D - that is all.

 

[muppet]

Getting back to the original question about "why DD over 6D" is often recommended, I can think of a couple reasons:

1) Players cannot handle short term variance. A high count in a DD game often only lasts a couple hands before the shuffle. The number of big bets won/lost before a shuffle is usually not significant. However, with a shoe, it's more common to play several consecutive hands in a high count, and some of the negative swings a player can encounter in a single shoe can be pretty brutal. Players who are not used to this sort of variance and players who are overbetting their bankroll will naturally gravitate toward the double-deck games.

2) Players are not patient enough for shoes. On double-deck, the time from one high count to the next is typically only a few minutes. On a shoe, you frequently have to wait a half hour or more before making your first +EV bet. Some players cannot handle the grind of backcounting or placing small bets on a shoe game while waiting for the +EV situation to come up.

:\ is that it? i thought there were EV-impacting reasons..

and what do you guys make of the very small .10% house edge suggested by combinatorial mathematics? can someone run a sim.. it sounds too good to be true

 

[Count Backula]

keep in mind

For non-counters, you can still wong out if you see a bunch of tens and aces in the first couple of rounds. Either go to a different table or sit out till the next round. If there are many tables around, this is of course easier.

Therefore, a double deck would be better for this tactic.

This is a sort of "counting by inference", but only applies to the first round or two.

 

[muppet]

1 player, 2 billion hands per sim. when a player wongs out, start playing again at a new shuffle, with a 5min delay. 2d vs 6d, vegas rules.

do these pens look about right?

-0.18% - 6d 75% pen
-0.20% - 2d @ 67% pen

count with hi-lo, ill18 & fab4 indices. i listed action/hr as a means to compare risk (not sure what else i should have used). i used 25 min bet for 6d, and 50 min bet for 2d so as to produce comparable 'risks' (since 2d has half the spread).

6d:
+1.28% 1-16, $140/hr, $12.5k/hr
+1.61% wong @ -2
+1.80% wong @ -1, $201/hr, $13.3k/hr

2d:
+1.45% 1-8, $184/hr, $14.8k/hr
+1.91% wong @ -3, $216/hr, $13.1k/hr
+2.03% wong @ -2
+2.16% wong @ -1, $211/hr, $11.2k/hr

something that is weird..i don't see how wonging out in 6d causes more action/hr than playing every hand. i guess more high bets from high counts.

i think the most realistically comparable results here are 2d wonging at -3 (so you don't look like a bunny) and 6d wonging at -1. if you are not going to be regularly wonging out, then 2d is the clear winner here.

 

[muppet]

and since i'm going to reno in a few days:

8d:
-0.60% 75% pen
+0.88% 1-20, wong @ -2

1d:
-0.35% 50% pen
-0.26% 60% pen
+1.60% 60%, 1-8
+2.09% 60%, 1-8, wong @ -3

 

[prankster]

In Breaking The Tables In Las Vegas Ian Andersen said if he were forced to pick he'd go with the shoes. (though he does say it's a tough call):joker:

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Okay, so how do y'all think 4 decks stacks up?

 

[muppet]

depends on the rules