(this is posted already in the Outside US section, but maybe others would find this interesting).
i've been running a computer simulation corresponding to my conditions:
5 decks, between 3.5-4 penetration, ENHC rules, no DAS, no hitting split aces (anybody know the disadvantage for that??), no resplits. lousy conditions, right? well, it gets worse. the table (yes, just one is open most of the time) is usually full and the players you can ride tend to be very poor.
to make up for the otherwise lousy conditions, i only play shoes higher than +2 and i only back-bet other people on hands of +3 or higher (TC using hi-lo). my computer simulations show that this game can be beaten. since there is no heat, i can get away with large bet spreads and i don't worry about camouflage.
here are some numbers on my computer simulation so far.
using a betting scheme of 40, 60, 100, 150, for respective TCs of 3,4,5 and 6 (or higher), i ran a simulation of 3 players, each entering and exiting at TC +3. each starts with a bankroll of 1000.
player 1 uses basic strategy
player 2 uses hi-lo index numbers up to +10 (i don't need to worry about heat in this casino).
player 3 is a rather lousy player---s/he stands ALWAYS on 15 and 16, stands on 12 and 13 always. doesn't split 88s against 9. stands on A,7 against 9, 10, A. and i threw in a small handful of other mistakes for the fun of it. (most players i ride are much better than this anyway, but i want to see what happens with a really poor, but conservative player).
i am most interested in seeing whether i should bother back-betting player 3--players i see in the casino who make lots of conservative mistakes. i have had success back-betting behind poor players at high TCs (+4 or higher).
here are the results after 1815117 hands played (each hand played at over TC +3).
player 1's bankroll: 2,796,950 Basic Strategy
player 2's bankroll: 3,062,490 Hi-Lo counter
player 3's bankroll: 2,230,170 lousy, conservative player
i should add that the players were at a full table (simulating my conditions) and that players 1,2 and 3 wong-in and out at +3 (which is the same as back-betting). the players use the same betting strategy that correlates with the count.
i will keep the simulation going. unless i've made some mistake, i think there is something to be said for betting behind poor players at high TCs. i've been making money doing this for the last 3 months (of course, that's not statistically significant). many counters in Europe must choose between not betting or only betting one hand when the count gets high because all the other players are non-basic strategy players (i used the word "idiots" once but that offended somebody...but, i realize that counters are also non-basic strategy players!).
according to my simulation, i feel like i'm justified in riding these unbridled horses. i play with enough regulars that i can analyze each players moves and i know whom to ride. of course, you can often get players to make the correct move when you have big bets out. i've simulated the kind of player you would fear riding on, but who, nonetheless, can bring you a profit. how bad does a player have to be for you to lose money when the count is, say, +5?
i'd appreciate feedback. i'm new here and i've never run a simulation before. (i used Sage Blackjack).
ToeCheese
