Created a quick-dirty-ugly sim of Lucky Ladies

Using the payouts at the local dive, and K-O, it looks like the breakeven is at +11. This assumes payouts of $4, $10, $25, $125. I didn't bother to put in the jackpot (Qh-Qh losing to dealer BJ).

My post asking about it is here:
http://bj21satellite.com/misc_bj/index.cgi?read=118184

The "sim", including source code, is available here:
http://www.geocities.com/uglydrakeling

If anyone would like to critique it, especially if there is an error, I would appreciate it.

The source code hasn't been cleaned up at all. There is some dead code in it, but it's small and simple enough that it probably doesn't matter.

Note that in Java, arrays begin at 0. I've used 0=ace, so a card with value 1 is actually the 2 (of clubs), and 12 is king (clubs).

0-12 clubs (suit 0)
13-25 diamonds (suit 1)
26-38 hearts (suit 2)
39-51 spades (suit 3)

Qh is therefore card 37.

The sim takes the current count, hands two cards to the player, and then decides whether it's a 20 or not. No dealer card gets taken -- it doesn't matter, after all (except for the super jackpot, which I didn't bother putting in).

You only posted your "Shoe" class -- the bottom two links post to the same class. I can't find the driver class for the applet.

Thanks.

--Mayor

The results I was getting were so out of line with what I'd guessed, and what others said, that I changed how it was accounting for wins/losses, which fixed a bug. I also added the "jackpot" win.

All files have been uploaded to Geocities (sorry, but they're easy to set up on).

Currently, it shows a win starting at (K-O) +6.

I think K-O is a marginally better system than Hi-Lo to use for this, since it accounts for the 7's. Of course, a custom count that tracks only 9-X-A vs the rest would be better still.

http://www.galaxygaming.com/products.htm

I don't know if this will help or not, but here is the word from the horse's mouth.

Ray

Card Counting Vulnerability Analysis *

The game was tested to determine if a player using card counting techniques with the aid of a computer at the table could gain an advantage against the House. The computer tracked every card, by number and suit. This was chosen as a "worst case scenario" test. The computer performed simulation of over 3.7 billion hands using various number of decks and deck penetration variables. The analysis showed that without the aid of a computer, it would be impossible for a player to gain an advantage.

I wonder what I did wrong??

The vendor is just trying to sell their game. I found their quote about CC pretty amusing. Lets see, they did a detailed analysis with a computer tracking every card and then used that analysis to come to the conclusion that you can't beat their game without a computer? I think this is what my logic professor used to call a false analogy. Similar to me saying that I ran a race on foot against a formula 1 race car, and based on that I conclude that you can't beat me in a race unless you use a formula 1 race car??? Notice that they did not give the results of the computer analysis.

With a sufficient spread, it is obvious that this game could be beaten by an appropriate count system. The only question is whether the ROI is worth the effort.

BTW, I personally dislike this and other side bets because they slow down the game tremendously. I sat next to a guy a couple weeks ago who insisted on playing odd $ bets (e.g $53) on a side bet with a basic pay-off of 2 1/2 to one. He was wondering why I was openly cheering for him to lose.

I re-re-re-did the sim, and corrected another coding mistake. It's positive at +9, not +7. And it's basically worthless even there. Besides, how often do you see a +9 count? Not very often.

My first mistake was in coding it to count the initial bet as a loss. The second was in coding it to count the initial bet as a win. It's neither, it's just a bet, after all.

This was at a casino using the 6D schedule (worse odds) on a 2D game. I suppose the higher QhQh payout (but lower jackpot) for the real 2D schedule would make it a little more attractive, but not much -- you'd have to side-count the Qh's.

Oh well.

it's good cheap cover.