Data needed

I am testing something but would be of much help if a simulation can be run for a test of 100,000 hands. I want to only review the hands won or loss when the TC is 1 or greater. My understanding is that this should result to about 25% or 25,000 hands when the TC is positive.

Is there anyway to record the data and actually review only these hands or does the simulation only provide end result information ie: % won, loss etc?

I having been reviewing certain trends with TC related hands versus the play all approach but need to see a much large sample.

I have manually tested 20,000 hands and hand recorded it but was hoping for a computer to crank out the rest.

If a test can be run, I would like it to be run on 6 decks, 75% penetration, dealer hits on soft 17, double on anything, and double after split.

Thanks,
Brendan

http://www.bjstats.com/bjsc.asp

but thank you. This gave me grand totals and I was hopig for to view all the individual data recorded. I am not sure if it is possible for a simulation to spit out all the data on a per hand basis. Again, just looking only at the TC data and dumping the rest.

Why are you interested in a hand by hand breakdown. The value of a simulation lies in the cumulative results. Why reduce it to anything less?

Call me crazy. I've been looking solely at TC results and seeing if there are any differences in patterns of wins/losses versus hands that are 0 or less in TC. I was thinking that there has to be a way to win more money than only betting in relation to the count.

When the count is positive, we all know that we get more BJs, higher winning %, higher pushed hands %, and lower losing %. Cetain winning and losing streaks and other paterns are different than if you play all. How do I know? I personally checked it out. I've reviewed the data. I've been researching this data and seeing how I can increase my advantage.

I wanted to compare my system to the standard system of betting with the true count. So I actually have 2 sets of data. One is for the normal way of betting ie: TC 1 bet $10, TC 2 bet $20, TC 3 bet $30 etc. The other way is my way. My objective was to see if my way was better or worse than if using the standard way of betting.

One thing that is common between my system and the standard system is that we both bet more when the count is 1 or greater.

With that said, this is only based off of total 20k hands which resulted in 5k TC hands. I only bet the minimum when the TC is 0 or negative but bet differently on when the hands are positive.

In order for me to really get an understanding if this little test will hold up, I want to perfom further tests over 25k TC hands which comes from approximately 100,000 total hands played.

I could be waisting my time but this testing has peeked my interest and I want to see what will happen with a lot more hands simulated.

Currently my overal winning percentage on 20k (5K TC) is 2.5%.

Who knows, maybe I'll get taken big time on the next 5k TC hands.

Brendan

"I could be waisting my time but this testing has peeked my interest and I want to see what will happen with a lot more hands simulated."

1. Wasting

2. Piqued

3. You're wasting your time!

Don

Maybe we should require APA format :-) (NT)

he missed cetain and paterns

Sorry about the spelling on a couple of words.

I didn't want to go through the excercise if it really isn't going to help me. I was just hoping to get an extra edge.

We have a few policemen here. But since you responded, it's your spelling, not your grammar, that is the problem.

trying to figure out some kind of betting system like a revised martingale or pyramid system. He would use this system in the plus counts because the odds are in favor of the player.

Is he just another hapless innovator?

The Western Jackdaw (Corvus monedula), sometimes known as the Eurasian Jackdaw, European Jackdaw or simply Jackdaw, is a passerine bird in the crow family. Found across Europe, western Asia and North Africa, it is mostly resident, although northern and eastern populations migrate south in winter. Four subspecies are recognised, which mainly differ in the colouration of the plumage on the head and nape. Linnaeus first described it formally, giving it the name Corvus monedula. Later analysis of its DNA shows that, with its closest relative the Daurian Jackdaw, it is an early offshoot from the genus Corvus, and possibly distinct enough to warrant reclassification in a separate genus, Coloeus. The common name derives from the word "jack", meaning "small", and "daw", the native English name for the bird.