Sims

I don't think sims are useless, but I do think many people put too much credence in them. After all, how many of you think you play "perfectly", just like the computer? Always put min bet on the first hand, always ramp up and down perfectly with the count, always make the correct insurance decision, always leaving when the count goes negative, always make the correct decision on 12 vs. 2 or 3, 10 vs. 6, never tip, never overbet your trip bankroll, etc.?

Besides, sims are in the long run and anyone who has played the game any appreciable amount of time, knows that anything can happen in the short run and probably will. You have to make it to the long run for the sim to have any validity.

So how efficiently do you think you play? I'd say I play at about 90% efficiency, with the main problems sometimes overbetting my advantage and playing through some negative counts. However, I won't lose more than 2-3 minimum bets in a negative count and sometimes I win 15 hands in a row in a negative count (wishing I was a progression player).

Interesting post.

Being an amateur counter who has no intention or wish to make this a career, I would say I play at around 80-85% efficiency. In fact, if you consider my other post about how apparently poor I am about asking about comps, maybe I'm even 75%.

My main problem is definitely, by far #1, playing through shoes with negative counts. As I said in my previous posts and above, I'm an amateur with a career that will support my complete loss of every few $k bankroll I bring down to Atlantic City each month, and my goal is to have fun when I'm here. Given that I do have a few $k bankroll and not a few dozen $k bankroll, I sit at $5 and $10 tables, which generally are overcrowded in this city; the Borgata (where I stay -- and EAT!) is no exception, but seems no worse or better. So when I get a seat, I want to play; you'll never find me above a minimum bet during a low count, and if it goes worse than a -2 true count I will get up and leave, but that still finds me playing TCs of -1 - 0 fairly often.

I have trouble with simulations and "practice" apps. Firstly, if a "practice" app is a Flash or Java applet from an online casino, I automatically assume that A) it's a continuous shuffle and B) if you're "practicing" (with fake money) you are getting a higher win percentage than you would be with real money. Maybe that's paranoia, maybe it's because I've been in the software development/IT field for 14 years; I don't know.

Even if it's a legitimate app, I am aware enough of my own psychology to know that I'm going to risk more money if it's not real. Whether or not I "should" (within the context of the sim) has less of an impact on me when I'm using it (if it's realtime; if not, well anyone can program a betting strategy much more easily than they can sit at a table and employ it). Furthermore, I'm going to care less about (and more importantly, remember fewer of) the times I wagered away all my practice money to $0; thus I will always assume I'm a much better AP than I am.

So I distrust sims too; I think they're useful in their places but only in certain very specific circumstances.

Sorry to write a novel; it seems I'm in the habit of doing so. Good post.

I don't think sims are useless, but I do think many people put too much credence in them. After all, how many of you think you play "perfectly", just like the computer? Always put min bet on the first hand, always ramp up and down perfectly with the count, always make the correct insurance decision, always leaving when the count goes negative, always make the correct decision on 12 vs. 2 or 3, 10 vs. 6, never tip, never overbet your trip bankroll, etc.?

Besides, sims are in the long run and anyone who has played the game any appreciable amount of time, knows that anything can happen in the short run and probably will. You have to make it to the long run for the sim to have any validity.

First, you should know sims are used only when Combinatorial Analysis is intractible. A CA will give the exact result, while a sim is accurate to within a margin of error (similar to political polls). Basic strategy is based on CAs, not sims. You can find Cacarulo's CA results here: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix9.html

Outside of using counting strategy indices, if you purposely deviate from basic strategy, you will reduce your expected value. There only valid reason for doing this is for cover. Most casual counters do not need such cover.

The reason sims are run in to billions of hands is to reduce the margin of error to a negible value. That being said, it does not take billions of hands to get into the long run. In your blackjack studies, you may run into a value referred to as N0. This value represents the number of hands it takes for the expected value to equal one standard deviation. In other words, after playing this many hands, you have about 83% chance of being ahead. N0 is typically between 10,000 and 20,000 hands, depending on the game. This is around 100 to 200 hours of play, certainly achievable within a year for even a casual player.

You can calculate N0 for a variety of games and playing strategies online at http://www.qfit.com/cvcxonlineviewer.htm.

Note: N0 = 1000000 / c-SCORE

I'm not sure the original poster meant that he was *purposely* playing at 90% "efficiency" in terms of AP, and I'm certain that I meant that I wasn't playing at 75-85% efficiency on purpose. I explained in my post why it usually ends up this way, and why I don't particularly care a great deal at the moment.

That said, I 100% agree with you RE: combinatorial analysis vs. simulations, and I would never purposely make a basic strategy error. However, when tables are crowded and my trip is short (due to the other factors I've discussed in my other posts -- having a lucrative full-time job; not playing card counting as a career; wanting to have fun more than I want to make money at blackjack; etc.), I will often sit through a shoe with a TC of -1 to -2 and flat bet the table minimum (especially at a red chip table) if I am fed up with waiting for a seat at a table. Do I expect this strategy to cut in to my potential earnings? Absolutely. However, for me, the sacrifice is worth the "reward" of finally sitting down and playing some blackjack, socializing, and having a cocktail or two.

*shrug* Just wanted to explain how I interpreted the original post; not saying my interpretation is correct.

Thanks for the post
-BB

On the subject of sims...ive created a program that counts card perfectly...much like a sim. Which includes basic strategy for the correct game and all the matrix charts for that certain count.

Im using USTON APC count + matrix charts.

Now being a program (and not human) its counts perfectly!! Giving me true counts & betting coutnts for example :

TC 7.8
TC 7.9
TC 8
etc...

now....say there is a change in Basic Strategy at a true count of 8 or higher. (e.g. instead of standing 16 verses 6, i need to hit!)
Should i make the program AVERAGE the true count???

example on TC of 7.8 or higher, hit on 16 v 6???
or keep it very very accurate?

When we count without computers at the casinos we average the True count by guessing the discard tray, should i do the same with my program?

would my results differ?

"now....say there is a change in Basic Strategy at a true count of 8 or higher. (e.g. instead of standing 16 verses [versus] 6, i need to hit!)"

I surely hope you meant that, on TC >= +8 you would STAND on 16 v. 7, rather than hit. You seem a little mixed up in your example.

"Should i make the program AVERAGE the true count???"

Where you write "average," did you mean to write "round"?

Don

sorry don, it seems to make more sense in my head than in writing :P

yes, i do mean "round" my true count to the nearest whole number rather than 7.8,7.9.

And yes it was an example (i wasnt thinking about BS or any charts)

I didnt want to give jus ONE correct exmaple, becaue i would change my rounding in the programming for ALL the true counts, not just one (ofcourse)

Do you think rounding would be better than being VERY ACCURATE??

It depends on what you mean by "better."

First, you would have to either have in your possession or be confident in your creation of a basic strategy chart that was valid for any fraction of any whole number of TC, which IMHO would be time-consuming and difficult, if even possible -- maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but what is your alternative if you decide NOT to round?

Second, if you decide NOT to round in your simulation (assuming you have the correct decisions for all plays [e.g. modifications to basic strategy based on TC] for all possible real number true counts), obviously the results will reflect less of a house edge and a higher earning potential for the player. However, it's perfectly unrealistic to use this simulation to predict house edge and earnings in a real situation (e.g. sitting at a casino) because you can't possibly memorize every single real number between (say) -8 and 8, let alone all of the ramifications to Basic Strategy within that domain of real numbers.

So the answer depends on what you're trying to simulate -- are you trying to simulate a REAL PERSON'S experience at a casino that doesn't allow counting devices or computers at its tables? If so, you should obviously round because nobody could possibly live up to a simulation that knew exactly what to do for every single fractional true count.

If you are trying to simulate what would be the best possible house edge and earning potential if, say, you got a robot or cyborg to play for you, then you shouldn't round. I don't know how useful this simulation would be for a human player, but you didn't post the motivation behind writing this simulation, so I don't know.

Good luck.
-BB

Always put min bet on the first hand, always ramp up and down perfectly with the count, always make the correct insurance decision, always leaving when the count goes negative, always make the correct decision on 12 vs. 2 or 3, 10 vs. 6, never tip, never overbet your trip bankroll, etc.?

The 10v6 and tipping decisions suggested that perhaps they were purposely done.

who you were responding to but since the paragraph you copied was from my post this is what I meant:

you have a decision to make on 10 vs. 6 depending on the count; do you make the right one?

tipping: players should never tip (which would be in a sim) but in the real world may tip for cover, after a big win, our of the goodness of their heart, thus a difference between a sim and real life (the purpose of the original post)