Blackjack Combinatorial Analysis

I have just used the MGP's Blackjack Combinatorial Analyzer to analyze the blackjack with rules :-

1)6 Decks,
2)S17,
3)DAS,
4)Double on any 2 cards,
5)Aces split to max 2 hands,
6)Other pair may resplit to maximum 4 hands,
7)Early Surrender Vs 10,
8)BJ pay 3 to 2,
9)No Peek(but only one original bet + all busted bets lost i.e BB +1 rule). BB+1 refers to an rule, in which the dealer NO peeks for BJ and the player will lose all busted bets, plus one unit, if the dealer gets a blackjack.

I am happy with the generated basic strategy and the calculated expected value is -0.168%. However, this analyzer didn't show the number of combinations/outcomes for each payoff i.e +8, +7, +6, +5, +4, +3, +2, +1.5, +1, 0, -0.5, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8.

Instead of just generate the expected value, anyone have the program to generate the number of combinations for each payoff ?
(something similar to the first table shown in : https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/4/)

James

Curiously, the result given in this table in Appendix 4 for the h/a does not match the value given by MGP. This table gives a house edge of 0.291%. MGP gives 0.263%.

Fixed URL

Yes, MGP gives 0.263. Then which one is correct ?

Do you know any software that can generate the number of combinations for each payoff ?(something similar to the first table shown in : https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/4/)

James

Quote: teliot

Curiously, the result given in this table in Appendix 4 for the h/a does not match the value given by MGP.

I asked Mike and he said that he got the results in Appendix 4 by simulation of some number of six-deck shoes, using a cut card. His number of 0.29% (instead of the CA number of 0.263%) makes more sense now, given the "cut-card effect."

I am creating a bunch of similar simulations to get "simulated combinatorial analysis" for a range of games. None of these will involve a cut card. I think Mike's results are actually more useful in many ways. Mike's results actually model the reality of a shoe game with a cut card, not just a single hand off-the-top.

In light of Mike's update on his methodology for Appendix 4, I am particularly honored by the following comment about my loss rebate analysis of Don Johnson, where I used Mike's results. This comment appears in this thread at roughingthepunter.com.

Quote:

Yes, Jacobson used The Wizard's appendix for that number, which is wrong, apparently. Do you expect perfection from a couple of mediocre douchebags like Jacobson and Shack?

In analyzing Don Johnson, it is more accurate to use Mike's results that includes the cut-card effect than the off-the-top house edge of 0.263%.