Anecdotal at best but I thought that would be a great way to mess with someone just trying to get by using the demo. I found no such warnings.)Īt one point I remember someone telling me that there were no 5's in the decks of the demo version to specifically skew results. (Note: if these errors were purposely put into the program because this is a "demo version", then the author should have clearly warned the user of that. Even if it's just a programming transpositon error, that's just as troubling. Since it got a basic (if X <= (A) then.) variable equation wrong (as per my above example), I certainly wouldn't trust any of the complex math. If this were a $4.99 program these types of errors would be completely unacceptable-but at $95, at best, this is suspicious. I'm a neophyte, and if a novice such as myself found errors like this in just a few hours of use, that is extremely troubling. Even with perfect BS play and perfect counting and indice use, the margin over the house is still so low that absolutely any error or miscalculation at all could mean the difference between positive EV or it going negative (or even total loss of bankroll). There could be errors with basic math that could totally throw off an AP's ability to accurately gauge their risk when defining their personal betting strategies. Now maybe the author put all his effort into hi-lo because that seems to be the most popular, but K/O is still widely used-and if they got such basics wrong with this, you have to wonder what other bugs and errors are hiding under the surface that aren't quite as obvious. (I suspect lazy programming and that they got the greater than (>) and less than (<) signs backwards in the code). I noticed other wonky things, such as it telling me I was supposed to hit on 13 against a dealer 12 with a high count, and then wanting me to stay on other hands I should have hit with on a low count etc. According to k/o strategy you hit with a (so even going by their own ingame indices (which I think are wrong to begin with), I still made the correct play and yet the program still dinged me with an error. I happen to have a copy of Knock-Out Blackjack by Olaf Vancura and Ken Fuchs sitting right next to me, and so I looked up this indice to see if I was mistaken. The program dinged me for doing that, and said I was supposed to stay. I followed K/O strategy and hit with 16 on a Dealer ten with a (-8) count.
CASINO VÉRITÉ BLACKJACK V5.6 SOFTWARE
I don't get paid to beta test so I didn't write down every single one, but this was one of the most notable ones (and if you have a copy of this software you can duplicate this error yourself to verify): Within a few hours I found multiple errors. I chose the K/O 6 deck strategy option, and proceeded with the table play. In the settings the author allows you to customize your strategy (and kudos for all the detailed options) however, all these detailed options don't mean much if the program gets the underlying basic stuff wrong. I at first thought this could be indicative of other problems, or it might not mean anything, and normally I wouldn't have cared, but for: I normally wouldn't mention this because it's the engine itself that counts (we're AP's after all, and not here to play video games), but because of the money being charged I think this is a legitimate criticism: The interface looks like it was designed by a high school student in Visual Basic, and the graphics look like they they were pilfered from a 1992 clipart CD. I'll also let you know if your zipper is down (and I appreciate it when people show me the same uncomfortable honesty).īefore forking out $95 for this software (Casino Verite Blackjack v5.6 downloaded from ), I decided to try out the demo version: I'm probably going to get some hate responses for daring to criticize software that so many seem to love, but I'm one of those people who has no problem pointing out when the Emperor is walking around naked. A lot of people mentioned Qfit and their lineup. I asked a question in another thread about what CC software folks would recommend.
0 kommentar(er)
