Cowardly answer! :-)
You're publishing an article that discusses the off-the-top house edge in a SD game against a BS player. You offer two figures: one for t-d BS and one for c-d BS. Into which bin does standing on 7,7, v. 10 go?
Now, weasel out of that one! :-)
Don
> Cowardly answer! :-)
> You're publishing an article that discusses
> the off-the-top house edge in a SD game
> against a BS player. You offer two figures:
> one for t-d BS and one for c-d BS. Into
> which bin does standing on 7,7, v. 10 go?
> Now, weasel out of that one! :-)
Weasel words on the way.
First, I'm very excited about publishing my article!
Second, I would put 7,7 vs. 10 into composition dependent. Your post leaves me with the impression I've fallen into a newbie trap here, so I'm waiting for it to snap shut.
Third, I was thinking about the BS heirarchy from my previous post:
1) Surrender?
2) Split?
3) Double?
4) Hit?
and I realized 8,8 vs. 10 breaks my own BS rules!
It should be:
1) Split?
2) Surrender?
3) Double?
4) Hit?
This is odd, because I'm pretty certain most BJ books list it the first way.
Kasey
> First, I'm very excited about publishing my
> article!
LOL! :-)
> Second, I would put 7,7 vs. 10 into
> composition dependent. Your post leaves me
> with the impression I've fallen into a
> newbie trap here, so I'm waiting for it to
> snap shut.
No, no trap. It's just that, as such, it would be somewhat different than any other play, in that pairs and soft totals, of necessity, must consider the individual cards. So, even when you claim to be playing "just" t-d BS, you still learn the pairs and soft totals. the latter should have the "exemption I spoke about, and only hit, stand, and hard double decisions should be classified as t-d or c-d.
I just wonder, when someone like Griffin states that SD EV is 0.00, but grows to +0.04 for the player with c-d BS, if he has included 7,7 v. 10 in the first number or the second. And, I'm guessing it's the first. Practically, there's no difference out to about the fifth decimal, but theoretically, I'd like to know what he did.
> Third, I was thinking about the BS heirarchy [hierarchy!] from my previous post:
> 1) Surrender?
> 2) Split?
> 3) Double?
> 4) Hit?
> and I realized 8,8 vs. 10 breaks my own BS
> rules!
> It should be:
> 1) Split?
> 2) Surrender?
> 3) Double?
> 4) Hit?
> This is odd, because I'm pretty certain most
> BJ books list it the first way.
It's not odd, it's just that you were right the first time! Before any other decision (except insurance, which you didn't list), you should first decide if you're going to surrender. That comes before pairs!
Don
When an architects is planning a house, he needs to know the precise dimensions of every room, the size and strength of the floor boards, the types of nails, etc. Once the house is built, the people planning to live there will need to know how many floors there are, how many rooms, etc. -- much more general information.
Which level of detail is more "basic"?
What some people don't realize is that in order to construct "total-dependant" basic strategy, the experts generally first build an extremely detailed composition-dependant basic strategy. It turns out it's easy to build BS that way, because there are precisely 3082 to create integral totals not exceeding 21, with no term greater than 10. 3082 is not a number of cases easily handled by humans, but it's very tractable for a computer. So it's a case of "the easiest (and most accurate) way to see the forest is to count all the trees!"
Theoreticians, such as Peter Griffin, considered total-dependant basic an approximation of composition-dependant basic, simply because that's the simplest way to look at it. Yet I doubt even Griffin had all the 3 card exceptions to t-d basic memorized, let alone the 4 card, 5 card ...
So what definition should we use? I say we leave it up to the architect. For example, should we consider a large walk-in closet a "room"? Different architects will operate under slightly different disciplines which the average home owner would consider trivial and arcane. If the architect says it's a room, let it be so. If you buy your home from another architect, use his terminology.
Naturally, we would like to be sure our architect is highly competent. But we recognize there are different schools of thought on the minutiae of house building.
Getting absolute agreement on the definition of "basic" will not advance the state of the art, because there will always be this dichotomy between what the architect must know, and what the user should know. Indeed, once a basic is built, after a period of time, the architect forgets much minutiae and simply becomes an above average user.
I'm confused by your statement: "What do we do about pairs? I think we need to accept that, for pairs, we shouldn't consider 6,6; 8,8; or 3,3 as "composition" of the hand. We need to specify, right at the outset, that these simply are not 12, or 16, or 6. So, pairs get a kind of exemption; they're "excused" from being "composition-dependent," in the strict sense of the term."
This only makes sense to me if I reword as follows: "What do we do about pairs? I think we need to accept that, for pairs, we should consider 6,6; 8,8; or 3,3 as "composition" of the hand. We need to specify, right at the outset, that these simply are not 12, or 16, or 6. So, pairs get a kind of exemption; they're "excused" from being "total-dependent," in the strict sense of the term." That's what 12, 16 and 6 are, no? They're totals.
Perhaps the simplest answer to your question: "just what would you want us researchers and authors to call `basic strategy'? " would be to call infinite deck basic the true "basic strategy," and list all composition-dependant departures as exceptions. Then we could have just ONE BS for any given set of rules, at least.
ETF
> Perhaps the simplest answer ... would be to call infinite deck basic the true "basic
> strategy," and list all
> composition-dependant departures as
> exceptions. Then we could have just ONE BS
> for any given set of rules, at least.
I like this idea. After all, if I understand correctly (which of course, I may not!), these c-d rules are based on the fact that certain cards have been removed from the remaining deck, thus changing the probability of what will be dealt next. This, really, seems to be a form of counting.
Well, BS by definition is the best possible strategy that can be used SHORT of counting. So wouldn't it make sense that we would consider the deck infinite, making remaining-deck composition irrelevant?
> Well, BS by definition is the best possible
> strategy that can be used SHORT of counting.
> So wouldn't it make sense that we would
> consider the deck infinite, making
> remaining-deck composition irrelevant?
You'll pardon me, but I have a quirk, which is to despise infinite-deck BS as being utterly useless.
When I would know infinite-deck BS, what would I know that would help me play real-world BJ?
I just never have remotely warmed up to the notion.
Don
> You'll pardon me, but I have a quirk, which
> is to despise infinite-deck BS as being
> utterly useless.
> When I would know infinite-deck BS, what
> would I know that would help me play
> real-world BJ?
> I just never have remotely warmed up to the
> notion.
> Don
Don,
Would infinite-deck BS really be that different from, say, 6-Deck BS, given the same rules?
I took ET Fan's post to mean that infinite-deck BS would not be that different, and as such, could be adapted to any real game by means of a few strategy adjustments.
BruceTC
> When I would know infinite-deck BS, what
> would I know that would help me play
> real-world BJ?
You'd know everything, save four marginal exceptions, that many players know as "generic basic." The basic recommended by Wong in Basic Blackjack.
The exceptions are T2 v 4, A2 v 5, A4 v 4, and surrendering 87 v T. Standing on the first (the inf deck play) would be considered "counter's basic" by MathProf, I believe. Doubling the second and third are incorrect anyway, from a risk-averse point of view (inf basic is hit), at least for four or more decks. (Not sure about one or two decks.) It may even be possible surrendering 87 V T is correct r-a basic for four decks.
In other words, pending further study, my guess is you're probably better off using infinite deck basic against a shoe, than using either the c-d, or the c-d/t-d (as outlined by Cacarulo) basic tailored for the number of decks at hand.
ETF
> In other words, pending further study, my
> guess is you're probably better off using
> infinite deck basic against a shoe, than
> using either the c-d, or the c-d/t-d (as
> outlined by Cacarulo) basic tailored for the
> number of decks at hand.
Yes but if you're playing shoes (say 8D) then my c-d/t-d won't be any different from using the infinite deck basic.
The question is: When do we need BS? If we are playing against a slot machine with some advantage off-the-top I'll try to do my best even if I have to memorize 2-card and 3-card composition plays.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
> Yes but if you're playing shoes (say 8D)
> then my c-d/t-d won't be any different from
> using the infinite deck basic.
> The question is: When do we need BS? If we
> are playing against a slot machine with some
> advantage off-the-top I'll try to do my best
> even if I have to memorize 2-card and 3-card
> composition plays.
Agree 100%. I'm not saying you shouldn't go to the trouble of learning 2 or 3 card composition plays, I'm just arguing in favor of calling these exceptions to basic, instead of part and parcel.
Looking at these plays as exceptions might make them easier to understand and recall. You can look at the cards involved, and appreciate how their removal affects the decision.
ETF
Since Wong's "Generic Strategy" is total dependant, it would play T2 v 4 as stand, and 87 v T as surrender. I was also surprised to find A2 v 5 listed by Wong as "hit." (I'm looking at the chart in "Blackjack Secrets.") So there's only one difference between infinite deck basic, and the generic basic listed in "Blackjack Secrets" and "Basic Blackjack."
Infinite deck basic (as well as r-a basic) on A4 v 4 is HIT, while generic basic is to DOUBLE. Everything else is the same.
ETF
> I was also surprised to find A2 v 5 listed by Wong as "hit." (I'm looking at the chart in "Blackjack Secrets.")
I've explained this quite often. Wong ran sims to determine his BS and then stuck by them, no matter what answer they gave. He knows that hitting is the "wrong" play, but didn't want to violate his own algorithm for such a borderline decision.
But, he's taken a lot of criticism for having knowingly supplied the wrong play. In my view, he should have changed it to double and then furnished an explanation, in a footnote, that his computer actually said hit. Instead, he looks needlessly "wrong" in the eyes of many readers.
In any event, there is no one, official "generic" basic strategy. Anyone can come up with one. Indeed, I've seen a few decent books, each with a different "one BS fits all" generic flavor.
And, of course, the moment you introduce either counter's basic strategy or risk-averse BS into the equation, you complicate matters even more, which is why I didn't even bring them up.
Each is not unique, even with a given set of rules. Each depends on the bet scheme used by the player, and so, trying to agree is quite hopeless.
Don
In any event, there is no one, official "generic" basic strategy. Anyone can come up with one. Indeed, I've seen a few decent books, each with a different "one BS fits all" generic flavor.
Exactly why infinite deck basic is useful as common ground. It's easy to calculate, there's no disagreement on what it is, it solves all the ambiguities per pair splitting and all the rest, there's only one inf deck basic for a given rule set, and it's a perfectly adequate, accurate, and practical basic for attacking the shoes -- which you've always said are the games professionals are drawn to.
And, of course, the moment you introduce either counter's basic strategy or risk-averse BS into the equation, you complicate matters even more, which is why I didn't even bring them up.
I only mentioned them to illustrate that infinite deck basic is as viable and practical as any other. I'm not suggesting for a moment that counter's basic or r-a basic be chosen as THE basic.
Each depends on the bet scheme used by the player, and so, trying to agree is quite hopeless.
The plays I mentioned don't depend on the bet scheme.
ETF
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks