please help: I've been practicing counting systems with the software -SmarCard for a while and now I'm good with a couple of them, what's next game simulating software should I use to run the entire game simulation process - running the true count# against the dealer's upcards to come out with proper playing & betting strategies, while getting monitored by the software when errors occur?
Buy casino verite. The info is always off key. Oh yes, always not accurate.
i've used the qfit products (cv, then cvsim, now cvdata) for several years. i think they're great, and the service from norm w (who posts on this board) is top notch
the only bug i remember: recently it was discovered (during a discussion on bj21) that the stats for win % vs true count distribution were being reported incorrectly (or at least in a non-obvious way) in the newest product cvdata. a fix was released within days and available for download from the qfit site
wilfo
...(amazingly). Few people have so tirelessly devoted themselves to the pursuit of software excellence as Norm Wattenberger.
but there is one thing I can tell you with absolutly certainty. If you want to know what you should be doing. Then listen to the things that DON SCHLESINGER tell you to do. It's not to put anyone down in these rooms, but compared to him they are all amatuers. You ask Don what to buy, and you will ALWAYS get the correct and sincere answer. Don't misunderstand me. Don earns off certain things people buy, but he is a stand up guy and never sells himself out to make money in here. You have the questions and he has the correct answers. If you want to become a true BJ student, ask him for a starting point and when you have finished, ask him what is next. You may not like some of his answers, frequently he is sarcastic. But as far as all this BJ mumbo jumbo goes, that's your guy. Trust me on this. I always nick name him the DON. I hope this helps you.
HOLLYWOOD
To all who read these pages...you have the privilege of having the ear of one of the most (if not thee) most knowledgeable BJ authorities alive. He asks nothing for his expert advice which he gives freely on both red and green pages.
He gives it to you straight, and sometimes with a pinch of salt. His posts are solid and those who receive responses should treat Don's comments as "words of wisdom".
Thank you for your kind comments. I would like to point out one inaccuracy in your remarks. You write:
"Don earns off certain things people buy."
Unless you are talking about my own book, BJA, that simply isn't true. I don't earn anything from any other "certain things" that people buy. Not a penny.
Don
He was most gracious in noting several discoveries/artifacts in his simulations, going back to my first postings on the possibility of poison indexes.
--"What are these poison indexes now?", he asked, none the wiser from past experience. He vaguely recalled something about a poison distribution but was too embarassed to mention it.
CAN have results that are less using basic strategy. After extensive searches, at 3 college libraries, 7 public, and World of Math's website, there was no way of finding whether an index of less than 50% correlation would show such effects other than extensive simulations. Indexes over 50% would never show this effect. Norm Wattenberger sent me several results indicating where there were some slightly poison indexes, indicated in his simulatons, but none was significant to the standard 3 sigma level. His highest significance was one index, I seem to recall 16 v. 7, Uston +/-, that was "poison' to the 2.7 sigman level, in 10 Billion hands. There were others, with the strangest being some hit/stand indexes that showed such slight minus outcomes, having strange correlations to rules that there was non rational explanation for.
But NEVER, at least to date, has there been any rational way to weed such possibly poison indexes out to high significance levels, without costing you some gains. Throwing out those under 50% CC to EOR correlations costs very very little, but it DOES cost you money.
The reader might not be able to tell which way it is aimed. It creates the possibility you meant that the reader is not getting my terms, or the possibility I am being unclear. And it creates the possibility I am being unclear intentionally, or am being unclear through lack of being able to address the situation.
You know I get a kick out of skilled insults to myself. Stay sharp and biting!
I asked Norm Wattenberger about poison indexes and he responded that, as fas as he can recall or understand, this term would apply for an index that its use could actually bring worse results for the player than not using an index at all!
In this sense, I find the term very interesting, if not (medically) accurate.
"Norm Wattenberger sent me several results indicating where there were some slightly poison indexes, indicated in his simulatons, but none was significant to the standard 3 sigma level. His highest significance was one index, I seem to recall 16 v. 7, Uston +/-, that was 'poison' to the 2.7 sigma level, in 10 Billion hands. There were others, with the strangest being some hit/stand indexes that showed such slight minus outcomes, having strange correlations to rules that there was non rational explanation for."
It is difficult to decipher the above with any confidence, but my understanding of poison, in this context, is a play whose index reverses for a single, specific count level up the ladder, at least once. I too have encountered plays with such indexes way back when I started generating my own tables, using Stanford Wong's early commercial version of BJCA.
...An interesting side note, if not the cause for a minor flame war, would be Norm Wattenberger's opinion about the reliability of the available Index Simulators in the market today. But that is up to Wattenberger to post publicly and not me.
--Cyrus
your book. I apoligize if you got anything else out of it. One of the things I love about you, is that this is not your livlyhood and I always get the impression that you do it because you want to. Unfortunatly many people in these rooms don't get it, and every now and then they need to be reminded of what Gibran said. "It is when you give of yourself, that you truly give" and in these rooms, that is exactly what you do. I get the impression sometimes in reading the posts, that people think your just another guy in the chat room. But, I know your background and I know how valuble your time is and still you take alot of it out to answer the most minor of questions. Do me a
favor and give yourself a little more credit. I don't mean to embarrass you. But you just have to come to terms with the fact that when it comes to blackjack. You're the DON.
Hollywood
What inaccurate information have you gotten from Casino Verite? What do you believe the correct information to be? Why? My guess is that you will offer no such information, and show yourself to be a libelling troll.
