CBJN Question

Are the off-the-top advantage/disadvantage numbers given in CBJN calculated using composition-dependent plays and basic strategies for each individual set of conditions? For example, would a different basic strategy and specialized plays be used in computing the edges in a 1D H17 DAS game and a 2D H17 DAS game? If this is the case, since there are nearly as many basic strategies as there are game variations, would it not be informative to include an edge calculation based on a standard basic strategy, or perhaps two - one for DAS and another for nDAS (likewise if this is not the case, an optimal basic strategy initial edge would be informative). I know a few composition dependent plays and basic strategy variations, but I doubt if anyone knows all of the composition-dependent plays and basic strategies for every possible game. This would all be nice to know to ensure accuracy when I'm using my CBJN to evaluate games and in determining TC requirements for bet size variations when playing.

The off-the-top numbers in CBJN are not calculated. They are simulation results with a shuffle after every round. Total-dependent basic strategy is used. If you use a composition-dependent strategy or count cards, your results will be better than the numbers in CBJN.

Stanford Wong

Are the off-the-top advantage/disadvantage numbers given in CBJN calculated using composition-dependent plays and basic strategies for each individual set of conditions? For example, would a different basic strategy and specialized plays be used in computing the edges in a 1D H17 DAS game and a 2D H17 DAS game? If this is the case, since there are nearly as many basic strategies as there are game variations, would it not be informative to include an edge calculation based on a standard basic strategy, or perhaps two - one for DAS and another for nDAS (likewise if this is not the case, an optimal basic strategy initial edge would be informative). I know a few composition dependent plays and basic strategy variations, but I doubt if anyone knows all of the composition-dependent plays and basic strategies for every possible game. This would all be nice to know to ensure accuracy when I'm using my CBJN to evaluate games and in determining TC requirements for bet size variations when playing.

"If you use a composition-dependent strategy or count cards, your results will be better than the numbers in CBJN."

Also, ironically, if you do neither of the above, and play the game in the real world, you will do worse, because of the cut-card effect.

Don

The off-the-top numbers in CBJN are not calculated. They are simulation results with a shuffle after every round. Total-dependent basic strategy is used. If you use a composition-dependent strategy or count cards, your results will be better than the numbers in CBJN.

So then a total-dependent basic strategy is used for each set of rules or conditions (S17 vs. H17, 1D vs. 2D, etc.), beyond the common DAS/nDAS surrender/no surrender distinctions?

If a dealer is dealing consistant pen, say 60% for example, it doesn't matter what method he uses to determine when that 60% level has been reached and the cut card effect still applies. A lot of dealers give consistant pen and go by sight or feel of the deck.

CCE doesn't apply most often in SD when a set number of rounds are dealt, like RO6 for example, instead of a set number or percentage of cards cut off.