Casino Over Under (new game) getting closer
November 11th, 2015 at 10:36:27 AM
permalink
^ I agree with your figures for eight decks - I had used six decks for my 2.099686% earlier. What I find slightly worrying is, as you always raise, a fairer House Edge would be half this (hence your EoR).
November 11th, 2015 at 11:41:00 AM
permalink
Forgive me for the late response. I got caught up a bit. Instead of even attempting to talk math with you guys I will save myself the embarrassment and simply share with the group my two reports I had done. As you will see both reports were done extremely well by both of these legends within the industry. I don't know if I could have picked a better two.
Joseph Shipman's Report
Donald Catlin's Report
Joseph Shipman's Report
Donald Catlin's Report
November 11th, 2015 at 2:52:13 PM
permalink
Interesting documentation. The game you described matches 23 1/2 and 17 1/2 and you'll see we both come up with never folding and the same figures.
As to countability there is a measure (teliot created it) which essentially says how profitable a game or side-bet is. It is based on sitting out unprofitable situations, flat betting ($100) when things are good and seeing how much profit can be gained per 100 hands seen. The advantage of this is that it gives a numerical value, that can be compared with Blackjack (or other well-known games). As one of your reports says, usually this can typically be reduced by using more decks and/or having less penetration - i.e. shuffling earlier. However sometimes, while there is a possible profit, it's so low that it's not worth the bother.
As a comparison, it seems your game might be countable based on being able to bet 1 unit and 5 units when favourable (strategy 5) coming out as nearly 3% for 75% penetration. These figures are for UK Blackjack (based on some 10m-shoe simulations using infinite deck strategy)
As to countability there is a measure (teliot created it) which essentially says how profitable a game or side-bet is. It is based on sitting out unprofitable situations, flat betting ($100) when things are good and seeing how much profit can be gained per 100 hands seen. The advantage of this is that it gives a numerical value, that can be compared with Blackjack (or other well-known games). As one of your reports says, usually this can typically be reduced by using more decks and/or having less penetration - i.e. shuffling earlier. However sometimes, while there is a possible profit, it's so low that it's not worth the bother.
As a comparison, it seems your game might be countable based on being able to bet 1 unit and 5 units when favourable (strategy 5) coming out as nearly 3% for 75% penetration. These figures are for UK Blackjack (based on some 10m-shoe simulations using infinite deck strategy)
| Decks | Penetration | Profit using 1 to 5 spread | $ / 100 hands |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 66% | 0.63% | $26.75 |
| 4 | 83% | 1.13% | $39.21 |
| 6 | 66% | 0.25% | $18.36 |
| 6 | 83% | 0.60% | $27.20 |
| 6 | CSM | -0.42% | $1.75 |
November 13th, 2015 at 3:27:20 PM
permalink
Thanks Charliepatrick. I am in the process of getting GLI certified and specifically paid extra for them to do a separate report on counting. As you can see, I don't mind sharing and I will gladly share that when completed unless GLI has issue with me doing so. I am passionate about my game and want to know every potential issue there can be so I can see if the issue can be rectified.
