| Posted by: popanov at January 2, 2004, 7:24 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
//this is a repeat of my post in another "switch" thread. Sorry//
Hi! I am from Russia. Blackjack Switch is new game here(rules may seem strange for You...
I have some questions:
1. Is it profitable to make insurance? espesially when i have BJ on one box?
2. Why there is no surrender option in Basic strategy chart?
3.what will be house edge if it is possible to make surender AFTER switch?
Regards
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at March 2, 2003, 3:34 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Clayman; I agree, the data doesnīt look too far off.
A Chi-Square test yields 8.50
Degrees of freedoom: 9
Limit for 75% confidence: 11.39
Thus the data is definetely according to expectation.
My experience is also that the dealer upcards is OK. My suspicion is in another area. I would be glad if you could contribute data Clayman. Please e-mail me at:
snyggvfr@hotmail.com
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at March 1, 2003, 4:55 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
KX & Bigfoot
Well in my last session of 3627 hands, I hit the low of down 64 per-hand units after 1656 hands but gained 92 units over next 1571 hands to finish up 28 units.
To date: 8281 hands, down 22 per-hand units, a -0.24% loss rate.
W/L/T % of 40.96/42.74/16.3 (3392/3539/1350).
Doubles=8.8% of all hands going 362/237/130 or 49.66/32.51/17.83% All of the above assumes a flat-bet/hand unit. Longest "lose-only" streaks: 2 of 10, 2 of 11 and 1 of 12. Longest "win-only" streaks: 4 of 10,1 of 11, 1 of 12 and 1 of 14. Longest "no-win" streaks:1 of 15, 1 of 20 and 1 of 21. Longest "no-lose" streaks: 1 of 14, 1 of 18 and 2 of 19.
For the last 6000 hands or so I've used the Basic Strategy for the play of the hands recommended by Geoff Hall (NOT the Wiz BS) but I ALWAYS use the Wiz's EV tables for the decision of whether to switch or not.
For whatever reason (I think it seemed like every dealer upcard was a 10) I decided to track dealer upca... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: The Original Mary at March 1, 2003, 3:37 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Netgaming.com is owned by EcashServices Inc., is a privately held corporation with offices in United States, Canada, and Belize. EcashServices' products and entertainment have been on Internet for over 3 years, and always meeting the higher standards.
Our License
Netgaming.com is licensed by the Belizian Government through Flying Aces Data Limited, to accept, process and manage wagers ia the Internet. Users around the world can wager with real funds, which can be deposited, converted to "Virtual Chips" or withdrawn from personal accounts with complete security. Flying Aces Data Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of EcashServices Inc. gambling.
...............................
Investor Relations (888) 445-2918
(514) 931-2572
investor@ecashservices.com
Fax (514) 931-1965
Office Hours
9am - 6pm EST, Mon - Fri.
EcashServices is seeking qualified individuals in Montreal area for the following positions:
Perl Programmer ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: The Original Mary at March 1, 2003, 3:30 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Vipin Goyal
Business Development Manager
Vipin@ecashservices.com
Toll Free Phone: +1-888-445-2918
International calls: +1-514-931-2572
Office Fax: +1-514-931-1965
2k Services Inc.
3500 Maisonneuve West Suite 1108
Montreal PQ Canada
H3Z 3C1
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: The Original Mary at March 1, 2003, 3:25 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
If you don't already have this information, your attorneys may find this useful. Here are Canadian contacts for the sellers of the netgaming turnkey casinos:
ECashservices Inc
3400 De Maisonneuve St, Suite 1205
Montreal Quebec
H3Z 3B8
owncasino.com
"Norman"
Marketing representative
norman@2kservices.com
Toll Free Phone: +1-888-445-2918
International calls: +1-514-931-2572
Office Fax: +1-514-931-1965
2k Services Inc.
3500 Maisonneuve West Suite 1108
Montreal PQ Canada
H3Z 3C1
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at March 1, 2003, 1:14 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Bigfoot; Iīm also ery sceptical to the Switch game. Iīve played it ALOT with ery bad results. Iīm gathering data to statistically evaluate itīs fairness.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Bigfoot at March 1, 2003, 11:19 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
I won't play Playtech anymore. They're regular bj game was slightly suspicious but their Switch game is really bad. I won 33.7% of the hands, lost 50.6%, and pushed 15.7% after 300 hands. No 3:2 for bj and the dealer seems to never bust.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Geoff Hall at February 6, 2003, 7:08 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by The Original Mary:
Geoff, thank you for participating on this board. Congratulations on your success!
I feel strongly about inventors' rights being iolated in the online casino industry. If I can be of any help with netgaming, please let me know.
Thanks Mary
It is annoying when a company blatantly steals an idea and uses the effort and conviction, displayed by Playtech to get the game off the ground, for it's own benefit.
Not sure how you can help but it will be interesting to see the outcome when contact is eventually made.
I thank you for your concern and support.
Best regards
Geoff
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: The Original Mary at February 5, 2003, 4:31 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Geoff, thank you for participating on this board. Congratulations on your success!
I feel strongly about inventors' rights being iolated in the online casino industry. If I can be of any help with netgaming, please let me know.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Geoff Hall at February 5, 2003, 3:28 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KX:
[B]
"I am more doubtful about the online industry and profitability though. Itīs much easier to sit with tables in front of you when you are online, and the bonuses are better."
Although this is true for the serious online player I am expecting (and hoping) that there will be far more players who are playing the game for fun and guessing both the playing and switching aspects.
Are you aware of this btw:
"Great news for you! Multihand Blackjack and Blackjack Switch are
available to play for real in the flash ersion of NetGaming.com.
It means that you can win more now!"
"My guess is that they are not paying you?"
You are correct, the game has been copied and, unfortunately, I am not that surprised. However, I am looking into the matter and will look at the possible avenues to take. It goes without saying that I am not being paid any form of compensation by this site for using my inte... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: KX at February 5, 2003, 12:49 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Geoff; I think the game is brilliant. I do think it will be profitable to land based casinos since players will rarely know ultimate strategy (there are still lots of players not knowing BS for regular BJ, and as we all know Switch is much more advanced).
Still, players like Clayman and me will love it because of the low house advantage...
I do believe it has potential to become popular among all players, atleast BJ players, and it should also be profitable in land based casinos.
I am more doubtful about the online industry and profitability though. Itīs much easier to sit with tables in front of you when you are online, and the bonuses are better. I sure hope the game will survive online, but I would not bet on it.
Are you aware of this btw:
"Great news for you! Multihand Blackjack and Blackjack Switch are
available to play for real in the flash ersion of NetGaming.com.
It means that you can win more now!"
My guess is that they are... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Geoff Hall at February 5, 2003, 12:22 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Ohh, I forgot. Thanks alot Geoff! Iīm happy for every post you make. Iīm a big fan of your "baby".
I too, want to wish you the best of luck around the globe.
How do you get paid for it by the way? Do the casinos "rent" the rights to use it, or do you take a slice of profits?
Thanks for the kind comments - ery much appreciated.
I receive payment by means of a fixed monthly license fee. There is no attachment to profits whatsoever. My aim (which is quite a difficult balance) is to keep the edge as low as possible, to attract the repeat players, but to also make it worthwhile for the casino to install. This second factor is more important for land-based casinos, rather than the Internet, as they have limited space on the floor.
Best regards
Geoff
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at February 5, 2003, 11:58 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Ohh, I forgot. Thanks alot Geoff! Iīm happy for every post you make. Iīm a big fan of your "baby".
I too, want to wish you the best of luck around the globe.
How do you get paid for it by the way? Do the casinos "rent" the rights to use it, or do you take a slice of profits?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at February 5, 2003, 11:53 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote:
Yes - $13.00 (twice your number) s $11.60 respectively.
OK, interesting. Then your experience of the game must have been far more oaltile than mine.
Quote:
Simply put, since the ariance in a round of BJS is higher than the ariance in a hand of reg BJ, it stands to reason you have more SD. How could it be less when wagering the same total dollars? It can't.
My point is that the standard deviation for a round of 2 hand (multihand) Black Jack also has higher ariance/sd than single hand BJ PER HAND, but since the bets are smaller on each hand the total ariance is less. I would like you to check my calculations and see how you would calculate a 2 hand BJ game. My guess is that you will agree, and if you do I think you will also agree that thereīs a descrpancy between the way you calculate BJ Switch and Multihand BJ.
Iīm not saying my way is right for Switch, Iīm just saying I canīt see the logic based on how ariance for multih... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Geoff Hall at February 5, 2003, 11:30 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clayman:
[B] "Why would there be 10,350 decisions when there are only 10,000 possible 4 card combinations? (10*10*10*10)."
It's something to do with the fact that there are 1,350 different ways to form the player's cards against 10 possible dealer upcards. So 10 x 1,350.
I have the calculations somewhere and can try to dig them out if you are interested (in fact it may be 10,550 - my memory isn't as good as I thought :-) ).
On another note, I had a meeting with Playtech earlier and it is possible that we will be going ahead with multi-hand and multi-player 'Blackjack Switch'. There may be difficulties with the graphics due to the extra cards being used.
I, for one, would like to see the transition as it can be quite good fun to see other players having a nice 'switch' even if you are sitting with 2 made hands.
Best regards
Geoff
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Geoff Hall at February 5, 2003, 11:21 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Clayman:
So you agree with the Wiz to hit A,5 s 6 rather than double? Guess I got 5 out of 6 right, anyway.
No you got 6/6 correct - I made an oversight and forgot the A,5 s 6, you should DOUBLE. In fact, this may also marginally increase the house edge in the Wiz's strategy as I ran the Wiz's strategy with A,5 being a double.
I posed Karel Janecek the following scenario, regarding the ariance, and he ery kindly replied back to me with his answer :-
Qu. Suppose you have $500 to play with and had a choice of playing :-
(i) 50 hands of regular Blackjack at $10 per hand
(ii) 50 rounds of regular Blackjack at 2 x $5 on each of 2 hands
(iii) 50 rounds of 'Blackjack Switch' at $5 for each of the 2 hands
(iv) 100 hands of regular Blackjack at $5 per hand.
Which would be the most olatile ???
Karel's Ans :
i) will be MOST olatile, with olatility Sqrt(50)*1.16*2*$5.
(ii) and (iii) have practically... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 5, 2003, 9:09 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Hall:
12 s 5 (Hit) ~ STAND
12 s 6 (Hit) ~ STAND
11 s 9 (Double) ~ HIT
A,6 s 5 (Hit) ~ DOUBLE
6,6 s 4 (Hit) ~ SPLIT
So you agree with the Wiz to hit A,5 s 6 rather than double? Guess I got 5 out of 6 right, anyway.
Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Hall:
Concerning the ariance issue I have asked Karel to provide a clearer explanation although he is under no obligation to do so and so I may not get the answers that you are looking for.
Thanks so much for asking. It shouldn't take him more than 5 seconds to tell you how many dollars there are in one Standard Deviation for one ROUND of BJS at $5/hand, $10 total for the ROUND.
Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Hall:
Simulator ~ 0.054 (House edge)
Wizard ~ 0.075 (House edge)
I was a little surprised at the results as I felt that the differences were negligible. However, on reflection, the figures that are being compared are also small and the effec... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Geoff Hall at February 5, 2003, 4:09 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Clayman; I still think one should use the $5 figure just like a 2 hand BJ game will use the $5 figure.
Iīve edited my calculations above. I do find either of our results strange though. You result, indicating that playing 2*$5 at Switch would be MORE olatile than playing 1*$10 at BJ sounds ery strange. My figure, on the other hand, looks too small.
Intuitively I feel that Switch should have LOW ariance since:
*The number of pushes is larger.
*BJ pays only 1:1.
But in practice Iīve had the feeling that it is quite olatile.
Can anyone who is SURE of the math check my figures above?
Geoff; I too would be VERY interested to see simulation results for the Wiz table. Also, can you provide an ultimate strategy?
Concerning the ariance issue I have asked Karel to provide a clearer explanation although he is under no obligation to do so and so I may not get the answers that you are looking for.
... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 4, 2003, 2:22 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Clayman; So you do believe that 2*$5 at Switch is more olatile than 1*$10 at regular BJ?
Yes - $13.00 (twice your number) s $11.60 respectively.
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Also, how would you explain the fact that 50 2*$5 game of BJ would be calculated with a $5 bet and 50 rounds while Switch would be 50 2*$5 game with a $10 bet?]
Not sure I understand completely. If you are talking about playing multi-hand BJ here, I'm never talking about 2 simultaneous hands of reg BJ s one dealer upcard. If you are talking about multi-hand, STOP. I'm not addressing that question (yet).
If I have to wager $500 and I have a choice of playing 100 hands of reg BJ at $5/hand or 50 hands at $10/hand or 50 ROUNDS of BJS at $5/hand=$10/round), I would choose the first, first and the second, second and the third, third. Going from least risk to most risk. ($58, $82 and $92 in one SD respectively). Does that answer your question?
Q... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: KX at February 4, 2003, 1:21 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Clayman; So you do believe that 2*$5 at Switch is more olatile than 1*$10 at regular BJ?
Also, how would you explain the fact that 50 2*$5 game of BJ would be calculated with a $5 bet and 50 rounds while Switch would be 50 2*$5 game with a $10 bet?
Where did you read that one hand of Switch has higher ariance than one hand of regular BJ?
[This message has been edited by KX (edited 02-04-2003).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 4, 2003, 1:16 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
As you can see in my example I think it is $5*1,3 = $6,5.
...
I was saying that I thought it was strange that Janecek agreed with your calculation.
I think (but not entirely sure LOL) the only thing we disagree on is I think it's $10*1.3
Can't help how "strange" the results might seem to you.
Am encouraged if you are saying you think Karel agrees with me and you don't
I thought he was too but still not 100% sure.
What I find strange is that you think $6.50 is even a reasonable number for one SD on a round of BJS when $10 is being bet for the round. Considering it's $11.60 for one hand of reg BJ at $10, just can't see it as being close. Simply put, since the ariance in a round of BJS is higher than the ariance in a hand of reg BJ, it stands to reason you have more SD. How could it be less when wagering the same total dollars? It can't.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at February 4, 2003, 12:26 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote:
I think we agree that playing 1 $10 hand of reg BJ gives $11.60 in one SD. Do we?
Since Geoff's ariance figure is per ROUND, I think the total $'s wagered for the round is the unit. I thought you agreed with me on this when you said "As far as I understand you Mr Janecek agrees with Claymans math. Clayman uses one ROUND as one UNIT for Switch."
You need to read the whole message
It continues: "This canīt be correct. I would guess the Switch calc. should be based on $5 as well." I was saying that I thought it was strange that Janecek agreed with your calculation.
Check out my example with 2*$5 in regular BJ. In that case we also have the SD for one ROUND (50 rounds, not 100), but still the bet is $5. I would assume the same thing would apply to Switch.
Quote:
Now if he had said 1.68725 was the ariance per HAND, it would be a different story.
So I think one round of BJS at $5/hand or a total of $10 for the roun... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 4, 2003, 11:40 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
You result, indicating that playing 2*$5 at Switch would be MORE olatile than playing 1*$10 at BJ sounds ery strange. My figure, on the other hand, looks too small.
Intuitively I feel that Switch should have LOW ariance since:
*The number of pushes is larger.
*BJ pays only 1:1.
But in practice Iīve had the feeling that it is quite olatile.
I think we agree that playing 1 $10 hand of reg BJ gives $11.60 in one SD. Do we?
Since Geoff's ariance figure is per ROUND, I think the total $'s wagered for the round is the unit. I thought you agreed with me on this when you said "As far as I understand you Mr Janecek agrees with Claymans math. Clayman uses one ROUND as one UNIT for Switch." Now if he had said 1.68725 was the ariance per HAND, it would be a different story.
So I think one round of BJS at $5/hand or a total of $10 for the round is 1.3 (being the square root of the ariance of 1.68725)*sguare root of 1... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: magnate at February 4, 2003, 11:30 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
I know the data is small but still. My concern and comment is questioning the sudden change.
Silly me, I decided to try Club Dice (a playtech software)
First flat wagered a little over 150 hands on BJ and win/loss was about even
Then for next 20 hands increased my wagers. IMMEDIATELY the house went into win mode and won 17 of the next 20 hands. IMMEDIATELY From about 50 percent to 85 percent.
I had only single runs and house went into the longest runs it had during the game with 5 then 6 then 4 then 2 (I was busted)
I want to believe that we can get a Fair and Random game but it sure is hard when they do these blantant acts. Looking at the figures is also kinda strange.
The Immediate difference IS SO FRUSTRATING.
they say they are audited and the justice system would get them if they were not
random. They say that tested (I bet flat wagers) over hundreds of millions of hands show random.. Well I guess that means they do what they wish for ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 4, 2003, 10:53 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Also, can you provide an ultimate strategy?
He thinks you should stand on 11 s 9, 12 s 5, & 12 s 6, double A,5 s 6 & A,6 s 5, and split 6,6 s 4 - all contrary to Wiz's BS.
Am I right, Geoff?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at February 4, 2003, 10:19 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Clayman; I still think one should use the $5 figure just like a 2 hand BJ game will use the $5 figure.
Iīve edited my calculations above. I do find either of our results strange though. You result, indicating that playing 2*$5 at Switch would be MORE olatile than playing 1*$10 at BJ sounds ery strange. My figure, on the other hand, looks too small.
Intuitively I feel that Switch should have LOW ariance since:
*The number of pushes is larger.
*BJ pays only 1:1.
But in practice Iīve had the feeling that it is quite olatile.
Can anyone who is SURE of the math check my figures above?
Geoff; I too would be VERY interested to see simulation results for the Wiz table. Also, can you provide an ultimate strategy?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 4, 2003, 8:03 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Hall:
So the question in my mind (for what it's worth) seems to be whether 2 $5 hands played simultaneously at regular 'Blackjack' is more, or less, olatile than a round of 'Blackjack Switch' (betting $5 on each of the 2 spots).
The question in my mind is whether 2 $5 hands played consecutively, one hand at a time, against 2 separate dealer upcards, in reg BJ are more, or less, olatile than one round of BJS at $5/hand. In both cases I have wagered $10.
In which case do I have more risk? I believe the latter ($8.20 for reg BJ s $13.00 for BJS in one SD).
It seemed that Karel agreed with me on this but I'm still not 100% sure.
On another subject, and since you have access to this simulator, I'd love it if you could run the Wiz's published Basic Strategy thru it and see if it still comes out to a 0.05% House Advantage. Is such a thing possible? For arious reasons, I think it will come out to more than that.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Geoff Hall at February 4, 2003, 3:49 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Geoff; Are you one of the inventors of the game?
Iīm not understanding this. As far as I understand you Mr Janecek agrees with Claymans math. Clayman uses one ROUND as one UNIT for Switch.
Thus, assuming 2*$5 bets at BJ and Switch we would have:
BJ: $5*sqrt(1,65)
Switch: $10*sqrt(1,69)
This canīt be correct. I would guess the Switch calc. should be based on $5 as well.
Hi KX and Clayman
Both of your mathematical interpretations on the analysis of 'Blackjack Switch' seem to show a competent understanding of ariance in Blackjack and, as I stated before, it is not a topic that I have studied to a level whereby I feel able to input my own calculations.
I do have the advantage of the 'Switch' simulator which allows me to ascertain specific information regarding expected win/loss ratio, overall EV etc but I don't always know what to look for :-)
My interpretation of Karel Janecek's analysis i... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 3, 2003, 3:13 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Clayman, Hmmm... This is getting messed up for me.
Me too, a little. The only fact I thought I knew was 1.68725 represents the ariance per round, as Geoff originally said. If so, I would think it proper to take the square root of this to get SD in units, just as in reg BJ ariance is, say, 1.34 and the square root of that is the 1.16 Janecek mentions.
Right now I'd be happy if we can both agree that one SD for 50 rounds of switch at $5/hand , or $10/round, is square root of 1.68725 divided by square root of 50=.1837 and 18.37% of 50 is 9.18 units times $10 as the unit=$91.80 in one SD.
Frankly, I don't even care what the ariance or SD for one hand of BJS is since I can't play it one hand at a time. And I don't play multi-hand reg BJ, as you know, due to bet sizing problems. I can however adjust my bet size in BJS to create the same risk in dollars I am willing to incur in reg BJ. So, if my WR is $500 and I'd be happy playing a $5 unit in reg BJ,... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: KX at February 3, 2003, 1:51 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Clayman, Hmmm... This is getting messed up for me. In order for the Switch figure to be equal to the 2 Hand BJ which Geoff stated it must be STD and not VAR. I do believe one should count the UNIT not the ROUND, but I might be wrong.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 3, 2003, 1:00 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Switch, Bet $500, $5 per hand:
1,69/sqrt(50) = 0,239
0,239*50 = 11,95
11,95*$5 = $59,75
I agree with calculations one and two.
In the above, since 1.69 is the ariance don't you have to take the square root of it to get to SD in units?
Then you end up with $91.85 instead of $59.75?
Also meant to say don't you have to multiply by 10 in the last line since the unit, like you said, is a round not a hand?
[This message has been edited by Clayman (edited 02-03-2003).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 3, 2003, 12:54 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Hall:
"the comment stated is correct, except that SD in blackjack is 1.16 rather than 1.1. Of course one round in BJ Switch, betting $5 per hand, has higher SD than one round in regular BJ, betting $5 and ONE hand only.
I can certainly go along with 1.16 as this implies a ariance of 1.34 and I have seen ariance as high as 1.32 for rules that include doubling after split. I usually use 1.13 and rounded down for demonstration purposes. It does not change my conclusion. Call it $58 s $92.
In my original post I was assuming I played 2 consecutive hands of BJ against 2 separate dealer upcards. I was not assuming playing 2 hands (multi-hand) against one dealer upcard. I was trying to get to the fact that in reaching any same total dollar amount wagered by playing one hand of BJ at a time ersus one round of BJS at a time. It still seems to me there is less total $ in one SD in playing twice as many hands of reg BJ ersus half as many rounds of BJS. ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: KX at February 3, 2003, 12:18 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
The standard deviation for 2 hands above given to 1,92 is consistent with the Wiz figures of 1,15 for single hand and 1,90 for dual hand.
Regular BJ, Bet $500, $10 per hand:
1,16*sqrt(50)*$10 = $82,0
Regular BJ, Bet $500, $5 per hand:
1,16*sqrt(100)*$5 = $58,0
2 hand BJ, Bet $500, $5 per hand:
1,92*sqrt(50)*$5= $67,9
Switch, Bet $500, $5 per hand:
1,30*sqrt(50)*$5= $45,6
[This message has been edited by KX (edited 02-04-2003).]
[This message has been edited by KX (edited 02-04-2003).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at February 3, 2003, 12:13 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Hmm. Isnīt the stde for 2 hands of Black Jacks:
sqrt((2*1,34)+2*1,16*1,16*0,37))= 1,92?
Edited for messing up.
[This message has been edited by KX (edited 02-04-2003).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at February 3, 2003, 12:09 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Geoff; Are you one of the inventors of the game?
Iīm not understanding this. As far as I understand you Mr Janecek agrees with Claymans math. Clayman uses one ROUND as one UNIT for Switch.
Thus, assuming 2*$5 bets at BJ and Switch we would have:
BJ: $5*sqrt(1,65)
Switch: $10*sqrt(1,69)
This canīt be correct. I would guess the Switch calc. should be based on $5 as well.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Geoff Hall at February 3, 2003, 10:47 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Clayman:
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Hmm... I though using (sqrt(1.68725/2)) would assume independent hands, wouldnīt it? Since the hands certainly are correlated it shouldnīt be correct?
That's kind of what I thought too but, more importantly (at least to me), do you agree with Geoff's statement "2 bets of $5 in 'Blackjack Switch' would be less olatile than a $10 bet in regular Blackjack"? As I tried to show above, it doesn't ring true to me if his ariance number is right. In fact, just the opposite - there are more dollars in one SD in BJS than reg BJ.
I asked Karel Janecek (the person responsible for the 'Blackjack Switch' simulations) for his analysis and this is what his reply was ...
"the comment stated is correct, except that SD in blackjack is 1.16 rather than 1.1. Of course one round in BJ Switch, betting $5 per hand, has higher SD than one round in regular BJ, betting $5 and ONE hand only.
... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 3, 2003, 10:42 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Hmm... I though using (sqrt(1.68725/2)) would assume independent hands, wouldnīt it? Since the hands certainly are correlated it shouldnīt be correct?
That's kind of what I thought too but, more importantly (at least to me), do you agree with Geoff's statement "2 bets of $5 in 'Blackjack Switch' would be less olatile than a $10 bet in regular Blackjack"? As I tried to show above, it doesn't ring true to me if his ariance number is right. In fact, just the opposite - there are more dollars in one SD in BJS than reg BJ.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: KX at February 3, 2003, 10:13 am | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Geoff Hall:
Firstly, the ariance, per round, is 1.68725 (based on 300 million rounds), so the standard deviation per hand would be 0.9185. (sqrt(1.68725/2)}
Hmm... I though using (sqrt(1.68725/2)) would assume independent hands, wouldnīt it? Since the hands certainly are correlated it shouldnīt be correct?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at February 2, 2003, 6:17 pm | | Topic: Still playing at playtech? Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by KX:
Itīs REALLY extreme. 330 hands in regular BJ with 72 units win would be a 1 in a 1000 event!
Now, using Geoff's ariance number provided above, Dr. O's results become a 1 in 43 event, right on the edge of +2 SD's, assuming an average bet of $22/round with doubles and splits.
| | Static Link |
|