Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 962
  • Posts: 16173
May 27th, 2017 at 7:28:09 PM permalink
Quote: LouisTrez

I'm curious about your setup for basic strategy with cut card. I assume this is based on a simulator after a gazillion hands (millions is not enough). Where do you have the cut card for a double deck game and how many players at the table? Our simulator is in the ballpark but a little different than yours. Thanks in advance.



I think I put it at 75% for two or more decks. 50% for one. Strangely, I find I find no correlation between cut card placement and house edge as long as it isn't so shallow that the number of hands per decks is almost always the same. To be honest, I have never understood why this is. Perhaps QFIT can shed some light.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 256
May 27th, 2017 at 7:42:25 PM permalink
Mike and I both came to the conclusion ages ago that once you pass the early part of the shoe, it doesn't matter. I never really looked into it. If you look at:

https://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects1.htm

you will see that the effect occurs in the final rounds. I assume what's important is not simply the penetration, or number of players; both of which would alter the ratio of normal rounds versus affected rounds. Indeed, if there are multiple players, it doesn't matter which seat you choose. What likely matters is the happenstance of the variation of numbers of rounds. That depends on number of players and how they play and wouldn't be linear. That's just a guess. It would take a few trillion rounds to examine -- and wouldn't provide any useful AP info. Which is a long way of saying: "I don't know". :)
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
LouisTrez
LouisTrez
Joined: Mar 29, 2017
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 17
May 28th, 2017 at 7:54:59 AM permalink
Quote: QFIT

A customized version of MarZam II. The MarZam II PRNG has a period so long, that if you started a PC generating numbers as fast as it could at the beginning of the Universe, it will not yet have repeated, and it passes the Diehard tests.



QFIT it appears you are a respected expert in BJ simulation. We think our project is suffering RNG blues. Will need to dig further to find MarZam II but what do you think about KISS? Also have you ever tried a TRNG service like random.org?
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 256
May 28th, 2017 at 8:03:26 AM permalink
I wouldn't think a service would be fast enough. Mersenne Twister should probably be adequate.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
teliot
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1811
May 28th, 2017 at 6:48:09 PM permalink
Quote: LouisTrez

We think our project is suffering RNG blues.

Custom code your own. I compared a bunch of them for speed compiling with gcc - you can easily get 5x the speed of Mersenne Twister with some of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_random_number_generators

The Big Crush tests are far more strenuous than the Diehard tests, but Diehard is good enough. In particular, the xorshifts are easy to code, pass nearly every Big Crush test and are very fast.

"A naive C implementation of a xorshift+ generator that passes all tests from the BigCrush suite (with an order of magnitude fewer failures than Mersenne Twister or WELL) typically takes fewer than 10 clock cycles on x86 to generate a random number ..."
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 256
May 28th, 2017 at 7:27:08 PM permalink
Newer Intel chips also have a true RNG. But, it's a royal pain to use.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 63
  • Posts: 10537
May 28th, 2017 at 7:34:59 PM permalink
Maybe there should be an "off the top house edge" and an "overall house edge."
"And that's the bottom lineeeee, cuz Stone Cold said so!"
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 256
May 29th, 2017 at 4:33:37 AM permalink
Never really cared that much as I'm generally interested in the counter's edge. Never understood why counters use BS edge, which is defined as off-the-top edge.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
LouisTrez
LouisTrez
Joined: Mar 29, 2017
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 17
May 29th, 2017 at 6:50:47 AM permalink
We are more interested in the counter's edge too but need to establish a baseline. We wrote our own custom code because we are exploring some non-traditional counting systems designed to be easier for the "Average Joe". I'm a new poster but I must say the knowledge level here is exceptional. Appreciate all the help!
LouisTrez
LouisTrez
Joined: Mar 29, 2017
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 17
May 29th, 2017 at 7:58:05 AM permalink
Quote: QFIT

Mersenne Twister should probably be adequate.


Well, we are now using Mersenne Twister and after 4 billion hands we are again converging on EV of -0.443%. I wonder if Swift is already using MT. Anyway, still statistically different than your -0.457%.

QFIT - I understand you don't care too much about BS edge, but we are sticklers for detail. Do you mind if I send you a private message?

  • Jump to: