I’ve tested this simulator for two years, so let me try to tell you. If you use HiLo, you need to start to raise your bet at TC=+1, but you set it as TC=+2 and thus missed most of the advantageous betting opportunities.
Good point and good insight - Thanks - I raised the bet from $10 to $25 at TC=+1 - and now the losses are smaller ... but still persistent ...
Try to raise your bet to $75 at TC=+3, $100 at TC=+4, and $125 at TC=+5 and above.
You didn't use any bet spread. You flat bet!
Don
@Don - thanks for your feedback. Agreed varying the bet is clearly Key.
Actually I did vary the bet - from $10 to $150 [unless I'm not understanding the input parameters]
- I didn't include that information in my initial post as I felt it wouldn't fit [too large a file and too large for the screen]... here's a simulation with all the information including varied bets and over 1 Million hands it doesn't get better.
That bet spread is ridiculous. Go to the chapter 10 charts and see what optimal bets should be. In fact, it's no spread at all.
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
This is a nice piece of SW - congratulations - and thanks for sharing.
Every time I run the simulation - it ends up being a losing run / losing game [over 1 Million hands].
I even tried to tilt the parameters/strategy options in my favor - and still end up losing in both the short and long run.
Which parameters yield a win over the long run with Advantage Play?
What am I missing or doing wrong here?
I changed the defaults that the program comes up with to raise the bets a little earlier
This is a nice piece of SW - congratulations - and thanks for sharing.
Every time I run the simulation - it ends up being a losing run / losing game [over 1 Million hands].
I even tried to tilt the parameters/strategy options in my favor - and still end up losing in both the short and long run.
Which parameters yield a win over the long run with Advantage Play?
What am I missing or doing wrong here?
This is a nice piece of SW - congratulations - and thanks for sharing.
Every time I run the simulation - it ends up being a losing run / losing game [over 1 Million hands].
I even tried to tilt the parameters/strategy options in my favor - and still end up losing in both the short and long run.
Which parameters yield a win over the long run with Advantage Play?
What am I missing or doing wrong here?
Thanks. And thanks for using it. Upping the bets a little earlier in the count may help. I am not sure what bet spread is needed for 8 decks with hilo and 75% penetration.
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
Your numbers are perfectly fine, Phil. You don't lose 49% of the hands.
Don
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
Your numbers are perfectly fine, Phil. You don't lose 49% of the hands.
Don
Thank you for confirming this 48% loss rate. Upon careful examination of the default basic strategy table, I noticed two mistakes there for the H-17 6-deck games.
A-8v6 should be Double;
A-7v2 should be Double.
Hi Phil, can you make these two default to match to your default Hit-17 rule?
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
Your numbers are perfectly fine, Phil. You don't lose 49% of the hands.
Don
Thanks. Is a 43.5% win rate higher than would be normally expected? Maybe the way I am counting splits as separate hands is increasing the number slightly, not sure.
Phil
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
Your numbers are perfectly fine, Phil. You don't lose 49% of the hands.
Don
Thank you for confirming this 48% loss rate. Upon careful examination of the default basic strategy table, I noticed two mistakes there for the H-17 6-deck games.
A-8v6 should be Double;
A-7v2 should be Double.
Hi Phil, can you make these two default to match to your default Hit-17 rule?
The default comes up as a simplified basic strategy closer to the stand on soft 17 multi deck strategy. The program doesn't have a way of automatically changing the strategy based on the playing options so I used the lower risk of the multi deck strategies as the default, but there seem to be more hit soft 17 games in casinos these days. I did default to doubling 11 vs. A as I think players do this more than not. But one can always change the strategy as needed, and use strategy indexes.
From Wizard of Odds:
"If you play a mixture of six-deck games, some where the dealer hits a soft 17, and some where he stands, and you only wish to memorize one strategy, I would recommend you memorize the one where the dealer stands on soft 17. The cost in errors due to playing the wrong strategy is 2.3 times higher playing a stand on soft 17 game, with the hit on 17 strategy, than vise versa."
https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/strategy/4-decks/
Thanks,
Phil
Your default basic strategy is a mixture of hit-17 and stand-17 games. I would prefer you to pick either one. Anyway, this is minor.
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
Your numbers are perfectly fine, Phil. You don't lose 49% of the hands.
Don
Thanks. Is a 43.5% win rate higher than would be normally expected? Maybe the way I am counting splits as separate hands is increasing the number slightly, not sure.
Phil
No, it's fine, too. I'd count two split wins as a win, two losses as a loss, and one of each as a push. I think the stats usually given are for the monetary outcome of the original hand.
Don
That bet spread is ridiculous. Go to the chapter 10 charts and see what optimal bets should be. In fact, it's no spread at all.
@Don - THANK YOU - the results got much better when I changed the bet spread to go from $25 to $9500
Q1 - What Bet spread can one easonably get away from without being backed off or attracting heat?
[I think tables typically range from $25 - $10k right?]
Q2 - You said to go to "Chapter 10 Charts" - what book is this please? There are probably many books to be read - which are you referring to?
Blackjack Attack, Playing the Pros' Way
Book by Don Schlesinger. Don is the most knowledgeable expert in the world.
Blackjack Attack, Playing the Pros' Way
Book by Don Schlesinger. Don is the most knowledgeable expert in the world.
@aceside - THANK YOU - I've ordered the book - hopefully that's a good one to start with ;-)
@Don - I'm obviously a newbie - didn't know I was getting insight from a Bonafide expert - please forgive my ignorance as I decide whether to invest in this journey ...
Is a bet spread from $25 to $10,000 reasonable in a Casino or wouldn't that attract heat?
Table maximums are usually $500, $1000, and $2000. I am a beginner too.
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
Your numbers are perfectly fine, Phil. You don't lose 49% of the hands.
Don
Thanks. Is a 43.5% win rate higher than would be normally expected? Maybe the way I am counting splits as separate hands is increasing the number slightly, not sure.
Phil
No, it's fine, too. I'd count two split wins as a win, two losses as a loss, and one of each as a push. I think the stats usually given are for the monetary outcome of the original hand.
Don
I am counting 2 split wins as 2 hands won for the hand % data. Same for losses and pushes. Up to 4 hands. But just resulting from the initial 1 hand. Sounds like I should fix this.
Phil
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
Your numbers are perfectly fine, Phil. You don't lose 49% of the hands.
Don
Thanks. Is a 43.5% win rate higher than would be normally expected? Maybe the way I am counting splits as separate hands is increasing the number slightly, not sure.
Phil
No, it's fine, too. I'd count two split wins as a win, two losses as a loss, and one of each as a push. I think the stats usually given are for the monetary outcome of the original hand.
Don
I am counting 2 split wins as 2 hands won for the hand % data. Same for losses and pushes. Up to 4 hands. But just resulting from the initial 1 hand. Sounds like I should fix this.
Phil
It's not that it's "right" or "wrong"; it's simply the convention that is chosen. Let me ask what some of my computer friends do.
Don
This is what I thought because your win rate numbers are slightly greater than other people's numbers. How about double-down situations? For example, a player holds a 5-6 hand and doubles down on it, but loses two units in one hand; do you count this as two hands lost or one?
One hand.
I still have a question about these win/loss/push percentage numbers. With your simulator, I mostly got 43.5%/48%/8.5%; however, the Wizard’s numbers are often 42.5/49%/8.5%. Is there a discrepancy here?
I will look into this. Thanks.
Phil
Your numbers are perfectly fine, Phil. You don't lose 49% of the hands.
Don
Thanks. Is a 43.5% win rate higher than would be normally expected? Maybe the way I am counting splits as separate hands is increasing the number slightly, not sure.
Phil
No, it's fine, too. I'd count two split wins as a win, two losses as a loss, and one of each as a push. I think the stats usually given are for the monetary outcome of the original hand.
Don
I am counting 2 split wins as 2 hands won for the hand % data. Same for losses and pushes. Up to 4 hands. But just resulting from the initial 1 hand. Sounds like I should fix this.
Phil
It's not that it's 'right" or "wrong"; it's simply the convention that is chosen. Let me ask what some of my computer friends do.
Don
Thank you, that could be helpful. The $ amounts and percentages are still accurate. And the hand percentages are accurate in terms of the method being used.
Thanks,
Phil
Following Don’s logic, it probably makes more sense to change “# of Hands per visit 400” to “# of Rounds per visit 400” ? Anyway, this is all about definition.
Following Don’s logic, it probably makes more sense to change “# of Hands per visit 400” to “# of Rounds per visit 400” ? Anyway, this is all about definition.
I have polled my sources: Norm Wattenberger, Cacarulo, Mike Shackleford, and Gronbog. The consensus is for counting the overall dollar result of the ROUND as one single win, loss, or push, which is what I advocated above. It is, logically, in essence, simply stating whether the ORIGINAL hand led to an overall win, loss, or push and, personally, I'm fine with that interpretation.
Don
