Time to purchase good software! I would like input from experienced users of each of these programs so as to make a more informed decision. I have read all the websites, but would value your opinions greatly. thank's
I heard Boris's software is rigged to make card-clumping strategies look good. To be fair to Boris, he seems misguided rather than malicious, and it could easily be just buggy code causing the discrepancy. That said, I can't endorse a product which supports a fallacious notion like card-clumping.
In any case, CV is in a league of its own in terms of user-friendliness and almost obsessive attention-to-detail, and its author provides very good customer support. I don't think any one has a bad word to say about it.
It will improve your counting/playing skills by an incredible amount.
Oh yes, did I mention that it is also _fun_ to play as well? :)
The drills stuff even lets you compete with yourself to see the improvement, and the charting stuff lets you see that skill line produce a positive slope...
"That said, I can't endorse a product which supports a fallacious notion like card-clumping."
Are you saying card clumping doesn't exist?
Gary
at least not in any predictable way.
Are YOU saying that card clumping DOES exist??
"Are YOU saying that card clumping DOES exist??"
Yes, I am saying card clumping does exist. There just hasn't been a way to exploit that existence in the past.
Do you really think the shoe game is computer like random?
Gary
I have never heard of the Boris but I can say that CV has really made me quick and precise. The best $90 I have spent in a long time.
I purchased mine from Stanley Roberts back in 1996,
and can HIGHLY RECOMMEND it. The graphics weren't
up to today's standards, but the 'guts' and statistical tracking
information are amazing.
a perfectly random shuffle, even a Continuous shuffler, will create clumps of big and small cards....just as wins and losses at blackjack are in every conceivable pattern including large clumps of consecutive wins and losses.
I recommend 6-7-8. It does most of the important things that CV does, but also offers VERY GOOD practice functions. I wouldn't be a very good counter without my many hours of practice on 6-7-8. CV can run 300 billion simulations. 6-7-8 runs 2 billion. I find it easier to generate optimum strategies in 6-7-8, but CV gives you better insight into the value of the options.
If I only bought one, it would be 6-7-8. I recommend buying both.
"a perfectly random shuffle, even a Continuous shuffler, will create clumps of big and small cards....just as wins and losses at blackjack are in every conceivable pattern including large clumps of consecutive wins and losses."
I agree 100% that what you describe is the reality of the game. But, what you describe is not randomness. And there are ways to exploit the patterns you have mentioned.
True randomness would be:
A shuffling process is random if each element of the list can end up in any position in the list with equal probability. That is to say, in a list of n items there are n possible places that any given element can eventually occupy. So if truly "random," each of these places will be equally likely.
All the best,
Gary
Hi Gary,
Card clumping does not exist in the Patterson-type way, which suggests shuffle biases fufill a bunch of age-old dumb gambling fallacies.
There are, of course, effects of interest which can be produced by non-random shuffles, as you rightly point out. You could call these "clumping" effects I suppose.
You look at what is supposed to be two different series of random numbers, between 1 and 13. One of the series has the string 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 buried somewhere in it, the second does not. What can you conclude?
If the series are long enough, you can conclude that the second is _not_ random, because the sequence 1..13 is expected to happen every so often. The first series looks perfectly random so long as the sequential pattern doesn't happen significantly more frequently that probability theory predicts. One well-known random number generator test is the "poker test" which works about like you would think. Generate numbers from 1-52, representing the 52 different cards in a deck. The various "hands" dealt, summed over a large number of tests, ought to match the known probabilities for similar poker hands... Not match exactly of course, as this is about a normal distribution, but match within reason, say via any one of several types of statistical tests that determine whether a series of observed data are within reason...
If there were no clumps, the deck would most certainly not be random...
"True randomness would be:
A shuffling process is random if each element of the list can end up in any position in the list with equal probability. That is to say, in a list of n items there are n possible places that any given element can eventually occupy. So if truly "random," each of these places will be equally likely. "
I agree with that, but it proves Bigplayer's point. if having a high card in one place in the deck means a high card can't be near it because that would cause clumping then it's no longer random. if six high cards are all together the chance of the other spots around the clump having high cards is just as likely as any other spot in the deck having high cards.
And there are ways to exploit the patterns you have mentioned.
That's what all progressionists have maintained for centuries....and they're all still quite wrong.
"And there are ways to exploit the patterns you have mentioned."
"That's what all progressionists have maintained for centuries....and they're all still quite wrong."
Where did you get the idea I was referring to progression play? I wasn't.
Gary
that clumps of big and small cards and clumps of wins and losses are both random...you replied that there are ways to exploit such patterns...this sounds like a direct reference to playing progressions.
What other ways are you referring to exploit patterns of wins and losses?
