BJ House Edge in various conditions

[James989]

Dealer Ace up, instant peek and then round or no round of play (American game)
Dealer 10 up, every player should switch to ENHC mode.

Peek(American Game), HE = 0.609
Peek on Ace(No Peek on Ten), HE = 0.709
Peek on Ten(No Peek on Ace), HE = 0.617
ENHC(No Peek), HE = 0.718

[Cacarulo]

Peek(American Game), HE = 0.609
Peek on Ace(No Peek on Ten), HE = 0.709
Peek on Ten(No Peek on Ace), HE = 0.617
ENHC(No Peek), HE = 0.718

TD-HE = 0.6968% (instant peek on Ace but NO on Ten)
TD-HE = 0.6171% (instant peek on Ten but NO on Ace)
TD-HE = 0.7177% (No peek)

Sincerely,
Cac

[James989]

TD-HE = 0.6968% (instant peek on Ace but NO on Ten)
TD-HE = 0.6171% (instant peek on Ten but NO on Ace)
TD-HE = 0.7177% (No peek)

Sincerely,
Cac

10 billions CVDATA sims results(Peek on Ace but NO on Ten) :-

HE(1 round/shoe, no cut card effect) = 0.697%
HE(cut card effect, 50% penetration) = 0.713%
HE(cut card effect, 50% penetration, Hi-Opt 2 full index, Flat Bet) = 0.668%
HE(cut card effect, 50% penetration, Hi-Opt 2 full index, 1-15 spread) = 0.013%.

The cut card effect is about 0.016. I found that no of deck will affect the cut card effect, penetration totally not affect the cut card effect, true ??

BTW, could you please sim this game with your CAC2 Enhanced counting system(50% penetration, Flat Bet) ? Just want to have a comparison.

[Cacarulo]

10 billions CVDATA sims results(Peek on Ace but NO on Ten) :-

HE(1 round/shoe, no cut card effect) = 0.697%
HE(cut card effect, 50% penetration) = 0.713%
HE(cut card effect, 50% penetration, Hi-Opt 2 full index, Flat Bet) = 0.668%
HE(cut card effect, 50% penetration, Hi-Opt 2 full index, 1-15 spread) = 0.013%.

The cut card effect is about 0.016. I found that no of deck will affect the cut card effect, penetration totally not affect the cut card effect, true ??

BTW, could you please sim this game with your CAC2 Enhanced counting system(50% penetration, Flat Bet) ? Just want to have a comparison.

With CAC2 + 52 indices, 50% pen, CCE, peek on ACE but not on TEN, I obtained a House Edge (HE) of 0.583%. Then, given that against a ten, everything
is lost if the dealer gets BJ, I removed the doubling indices vs. T and splitting indices vs. T (88vT). With those changes, the HE was 0.668%.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[James989]

With CAC2 + 52 indices, 50% pen, CCE, peek on ACE but not on TEN, I obtained a House Edge (HE) of 0.583%. Then, given that against a ten, everything
is lost if the dealer gets BJ, I removed the doubling indices vs. T and splitting indices vs. T (88vT). With those changes, the HE was 0.668%.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

You mentioned that "With CAC2 + 52 indices, 50% pen, CCE, peek on ACE but not on TEN, I obtained a House Edge (HE) of 0.583%."

Is your CAC2 indices(for hands against TEN) that used in above simulation still the original indices for full PEEK game ? Or you have re-generated new indices(NO peek on TEN) for hands against TEN and used in above sim ? Your CAC2 looks like a strong system.

For example :-


Full Peek, 11 vs T, the indice is -6
Peek on Ace but no peek on Ten, 11 vs T, the indice is +5(re-generated).


So you used index + 5 in above sim ?

[Cacarulo]

You mentioned that "With CAC2 + 52 indices, 50% pen, CCE, peek on ACE but not on TEN, I obtained a House Edge (HE) of 0.583%."

Is your CAC2 indices(for hands against TEN) that used in above simulation still the original indices for full PEEK game ? Or you have re-generated new indices(NO peek on TEN) for hands against TEN and used in above sim ? Your CAC2 looks like a strong system.

For example :-


Full Peek, 11 vs T, the indice is -6
Peek on Ace but no peek on Ten, 11 vs T, the indice is +5(re-generated).


So you used index + 5 in above sim ?

The 0.583% house advantage corresponds to a "full peek" game with American rules. In the other case (0.668%),
and only when the dealer has a ten, I used the basic strategy of a European game, which consists of "not doubling down and not splitting 8s".
For a third option, I used the European index for 11vT, which for CAC2 is +4 instead of -7. In this case, I obtained a house advantage of 0.663%.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[James989]

The 0.583% house advantage corresponds to a "full peek" game with American rules. In the other case (0.668%),
and only when the dealer has a ten, I used the basic strategy of a European game, which consists of "not doubling down and not splitting 8s".
For a third option, I used the European index for 11vT, which for CAC2 is +4 instead of -7. In this case, I obtained a house advantage of 0.663%.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

Thank you very much !

Next task is to use the perfect strategy to simulate. I think this will be difficult.

[Cacarulo]

Thank you very much !

Next task is to use the perfect strategy to simulate. I think this will be difficult.

I don't understand what you mean by the perfect strategy, which would have nothing to do with Hi-Opt II or with CAC2.
Which, of course, would be impossible to simulate.

Sincerely,
Cac

[James989]

I don't understand what you mean by the perfect strategy, which would have nothing to do with Hi-Opt II or with CAC2.
Which, of course, would be impossible to simulate.

Sincerely,
Cac

My idea, just before any playing decision, use combinations analyzer to calculate the best strategy . . . repeat for billions of hands/shoes.

[aceside]

My idea, just before any playing decision, use combinations analyzer to calculate the best strategy . . . repeat for billions of hands/shoes.

I’ve researched the perfect-insurance play for an 8-deck shoe.