Calypso: No Hole Card

[Calypso]

Don,

I live in the UK and obviously I have to contend with the "No Hole Card" concept where dealer takes ALL bets.

In your 3rd edition of BJA on page 490 you very kindly have a BS for us Brits.....AND I am very grateful for that.

I am asuming that to use something like Table D1 which, using EOR, helps with playng decisions when Dealer's Upcard is an Ace (S17).....Is going to be inaccurate due to my potential "Double Loss" when I split against a pending BJ from the dealer.....?

So that is proabaly bad news for me.....

However, I am rather hoping that you can confirm that I can still use the table in trying to evaluate my "Betting Advantage".....?

I am aware that, according to page 493, for a 6D S17, European No Hole Card, I am disadvantaged by -0.109. Can I just substract that value from the result that I calculate using m6 and the cards that have been removed....? Or is it more complicated than that.....?

Basically, I was wondering how I can calculate by "Betting Advantage" using EOR when I have no hole card and potentially could lose more than my initial stake...?

Thank You.

Calypso

[Don Schlesinger]

> Basically, I was wondering how I can calculate by
> "Betting Advantage" using EOR when I have no
> hole card and potentially could lose more than my
> initial stake...?

The only time you can lose extra money is splitting A,A vs. dealer's 10. All other opportunities to place extra money at risk, according to traditional BS, are forgone when the dealer takes all (ENHC).

The loss of .109 that you refer to comes from having to pass up these opportunities.

I'm not sure that I have answered your question, though.

Don

[Calypso]

> The only time you can lose extra money is splitting
> A,A vs. dealer's 10. All other opportunities to place
> extra money at risk, according to traditional BS, are
> forgone when the dealer takes all (ENHC).

> The loss of .109 that you refer to comes from having
> to pass up these opportunities.

> I'm not sure that I have answered your question,
> though.

> Don

Thanks for the "Speedy Response"......

Maybe if I can give a very simple example then maybe my question might make some sense......

Trying to mimic your example which you quote on the bottom of page 503 of BJA (3rd Edition)......

2D S17 DAS Game.....
We hit our T,2 v. dealer's 3 with a 5. He flips a 9 in the hole and outdraws us with a 7.

We now go to calculate our advantage for the next hand.
We know our EOR's, and we come up with 1.1393 which is multiplied by 51/98 giving us 0.5929. (So far, so good).

We now have to add this to our m2 which is the full-deck edge of -0.1820.

Now comes the UK element in that I am playing ENHC and according to Table C1 on page 493, 2D S17 ENHC gives -0.106.

So my question is.....Am I allowed to calculate my "Own" m2 by using the initial m2 of -0.1820 and adding it to the ENHC factor of -0.106, giving my own m2 of -0.288.

If that does not make sense, then I feel that I am mis-reading this whole chapter.

So what I am proposing is that I should be allowed to use all the calculations involved in calculating the next hand's advantage but to use an m2 which is reduced by the ENHC factor......?

Thank You for your patience......

Calypso

[Don Schlesinger]

Thank you for the clarification. I should have understood the first time.

Yes to all of the above! It should work just as you have described.

Don

[Calypso]

> Thank you for the clarification. I should have
> understood the first time.

> Yes to all of the above! It should work just as you
> have described.

> Don

Well that's great news....I was rather hoping you were going to say that......

The problem is that, having digested that good news, I have started to think a bit "Deeper" (Always a dangerous thing).

The thing that concerns me is the fact that the Basic Strategy in the U.S. is to split ALL pairs of Aces against any hole card, whereas in the UK, we are told to HIT a pair of Aces when the hole card is an Ace due to the ENHC factor......

Now, "Common Sense" is telling me that, when calculating the next hand's "Betting Advantage", the Aces left in the shoe in the UK are NOT going to be worth as much as the Aces in the shoe in the U.S. due to the fact we will not be splitting our Aces against the Ace hole card.

This must result in the "Betting EOR" for an Ace in the UK being a different value from the -0.5794 for an Ace in a S17 DAS game. (Table D17 on Page 522).

How significant a difference do you think the EOR will be in this case.....?

Where I am coming from, is that I am getting close to producing the most Sophisticated/Complicated Automated XL Spreadsheet to evaluate PRECISELY the correct Betting/Playing strategy based on every card that comes out the shoe. i.e. I enter EVERY card that comes out of the shoe and within a couple of nanoseconds, my correct Betting/Playing strategy is told to me by my Spreadsheet.

I am looking to use this within the many online LIVE Casinos that exist in the UK......

I like to think that my BIG advantage is that I can play on my "Terms".....i.e. I will only play the hands when say, my advantage is above +0.5%. When the shoe is anything below that, I just go out the room and "Make a cup of Tea" (Very British).......

The online casinos actually state that, "If you do not wish to play a particular hand, then just don't confirm your bet".......

I am using the most complicated "Kelly Criterion" betting strategy which in practice means my "Betting Spread" hardly gets above 3 or 4.

Obviously, a "System" is only as good as its "Weakest Link".......

So my BIG question is......How weak a "Link" is the "Incorrect" Ace EOR calculation for my ENHC scenario......?

BTW, if you think I have no chance of succeeding,then I would prefer you to "Put me out of my misery",now.....

Also BTW, it is your book that has "Inspired" me to try this......

Calypso

[Don Schlesinger]

> The thing that concerns me is the fact that the Basic
> Strategy in the U.S. is to split ALL pairs of Aces
> against any hole card, whereas in the UK, we are told
> to HIT a pair of Aces when the hole card is an Ace due
> to the ENHC factor......

Correct. And not to split 8s vs. Ace or ten.

> Now, "Common Sense" is telling me that, when
> calculating the next hand's "Betting
> Advantage", the Aces left in the shoe in the UK
> are NOT going to be worth as much as the Aces in the
> shoe in the U.S. due to the fact we will not be
> splitting our Aces against the Ace hole card.

But then you're double-counting the penalty, as you already "paid" for that when you changed m2, no? You lost global e.v. due to the changes in BS necessitated for ENHC.

> This must result in the "Betting EOR" for an
> Ace in the UK being a different value from the -0.5794
> for an Ace in a S17 DAS game. (Table D17 on Page 522).

> How significant a difference do you think the EOR will
> be in this case.....?

There are four changes to BS, as you know: We don't double 11 vs. 10, we don't split 8s vs. 10 or A, and we don't split A,A vs. A. In all, the penalty is 0.109. I don't know the breakdown for each play, but, on average, you're looking at about 0.02 or 0.03 for each. But, when you remove a single one of those ranks, its value is affected by so much more than just those four plays that I doubt very much that it can have any significance at all.

> Where I am coming from, is that I am getting close to
> producing the most Sophisticated/Complicated Automated
> XL Spreadsheet to evaluate PRECISELY the correct
> Betting/Playing strategy based on every card that
> comes out the shoe. i.e. I enter EVERY card that comes
> out of the shoe and within a couple of nanoseconds, my
> correct Betting/Playing strategy is told to me by my
> Spreadsheet.

Then, you'd have to recalculate, if you want to be perfect.

> I am looking to use this within the many online LIVE
> Casinos that exist in the UK......

> I like to think that my BIG advantage is that I can
> play on my "Terms".....i.e. I will only play
> the hands when say, my advantage is above +0.5%. When
> the shoe is anything below that, I just go out the
> room and "Make a cup of Tea" (Very
> British).......

You can do all that with just a simple point count; you don't need the sophistication that you're indicating.

> The online casinos actually state that, "If you
> do not wish to play a particular hand, then just don't
> confirm your bet".......

> I am using the most complicated "Kelly
> Criterion" betting strategy which in practice
> means my "Betting Spread" hardly gets above
> 3 or 4.

What is a "complicated Kelly Criterion betting strategy"? What makes it complicated?

> Obviously, a "System" is only as good as its
> "Weakest Link".......

> So my BIG question is......How weak a "Link"
> is the "Incorrect" Ace EOR calculation for
> my ENHC scenario......?

See above. In a shoe game, you will not find a huge difference between reckoning the value of every single card that leaves the shoe and simply employing a decent point count. Wong's Halves has 100% betting efficiency. What more do you want or need?

> BTW, if you think I have no chance of succeeding,then
> I would prefer you to "Put me out of my
> misery",now.....

I think anyone is entitled to pursue any intellectual endeavor for whatever reason he sees fit. But, if your online game doesn't shuffle after every hand and you can "back-count," then I can't for the life of me see what you would need your program for. It's overkill.

> Also BTW, it is your book that has
> "Inspired" me to try this......

Again, wonderful, as a strictly intellectual pursuit, but not necessary to win money.

Don

[Calypso]

Thank You for your "In-Depth" response to my points......

> Correct. And not to split 8s vs. Ace or ten.

> But then you're double-counting the penalty, as you
> already "paid" for that when you changed m2,
> no? You lost global e.v. due to the changes in BS
> necessitated for ENHC.

What I am suggesting is that when an Ace appears in the ENHC scenario the penalty for its removal should not be as high since some of it is already factored into the initial penalty for ENHC.

e.g. Let's say in an extreme case that a 2 pack game has been exhausted of ALL its Aces. Now since we cannot now Split our Aces, we should not be penalised, so much, for playing ENHC....However, we would still be applying our full m2 of -0.106 for next hand calculation.

i.e. As and when the Aces appear, the negative value for EOR for an Ace within the ENHC scenario should not be as high as the Non ENHC scenario......?

> There are four changes to BS, as you know: We don't
> double 11 vs. 10, we don't split 8s vs. 10 or A, and
> we don't split A,A vs. A. In all, the penalty is
> 0.109. I don't know the breakdown for each play, but,
> on average, you're looking at about 0.02 or 0.03 for
> each. But, when you remove a single one of those
> ranks, its value is affected by so much more than just
> those four plays that I doubt very much that it can
> have any significance at all.

> Then, you'd have to recalculate, if you want to be
> perfect.

> You can do all that with just a simple point count;
> you don't need the sophistication that you're
> indicating.

> What is a "complicated Kelly Criterion betting
> strategy"? What makes it complicated?

What I was trying to say was that with the use of my "Computer", the accuracy is 100% since I know at any precise moment, the absolute TRUE count (No Estimations about how many packs are left in the shoe) and my precise Betting Bank is known down to the last "Cent" etc.

> See above. In a shoe game, you will not find a huge
> difference between reckoning the value of every single
> card that leaves the shoe and simply employing a
> decent point count. Wong's Halves has 100% betting
> efficiency. What more do you want or need?

I have played many hands now in "Practice Play" during which time I have been monitoring and comparing the various "Counting Systems"......I was quite amazed that there have so many occasions where say, OPT 2 has been signifying a 4% advantage when BJA EOR calculations are saying just 2%. The 2% figure is always Backed Up/Verified by Griffin's "Best Linear Estimates" method etc.

To me, the difference between a 4% advantage and a 2% advantage represents double one's stake......?

> I think anyone is entitled to pursue any intellectual
> endeavor for whatever reason he sees fit. But, if your
> online game doesn't shuffle after every hand and you
> can "back-count," then I can't for the life
> of me see what you would need your program for. It's
> overkill.

> Again, wonderful, as a strictly intellectual pursuit,
> but not necessary to win money.

Why would this "Exercise" not necessary lead to "Winning Money".....? Surely, using a sensible "Risk of Ruin" factor, then what can go wrong.....? Bearing in mind that some UK online casinos are currently offering 150% bonuses on deposits.....So just creating a "Break Even" strategy will show a "Financial Gain"......?

> Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> What I am suggesting is that when an Ace appears in
> the ENHC scenario the penalty for its removal should
> not be as high since some of it is already factored
> into the initial penalty for ENHC.

Agreed. And what I'm suggesting is that the difference is minimal. The Ace plays a role in hundreds of hands, and the most important is a natural. Not being able to split Aces vs. Ace is not the end of the world.

> e.g. Let's say in an extreme case that a 2 pack game
> has been exhausted of ALL its Aces. Now since we
> cannot now Split our Aces, we should not be penalised,
> so much, for playing ENHC....However, we would still
> be applying our full m2 of -0.106 for next hand
> calculation.

See above.

> i.e. As and when the Aces appear, the negative value
> for EOR for an Ace within the ENHC scenario should not
> be as high as the Non ENHC scenario......?

I understand and concede the point. You were trying to quantify the difference. I don't know the answer, but I'm sure it's very small.

> What I was trying to say was that with the use of my
> "Computer", the accuracy is 100% since I
> know at any precise moment, the absolute TRUE count
> (No Estimations about how many packs are left in the
> shoe) and my precise Betting Bank is known down to the
> last "Cent" etc.

Again, computers for playing against shoe games are as old as the hills. My contention is that, for multi-deck play, the betting accuracy of a count like Wong's Halves is more than sufficient. Counting every card isn't going to change your edge very much.

> I have played many hands now in "Practice
> Play" during which time I have been monitoring
> and comparing the various "Counting
> Systems"......I was quite amazed that there have
> so many occasions where say, OPT 2 has been signifying
> a 4% advantage when BJA EOR calculations are saying
> just 2%. The 2% figure is always Backed Up/Verified by
> Griffin's "Best Linear Estimates" method
> etc.

You can't cite isolated examples like that. Of course there will be some discrepancies. But, you want the global difference. Hi-Opt II needs a side count of Aces for betting purposes. Wong's Halves is the best for betting.

> To me, the difference between a 4% advantage and a 2%
> advantage represents double one's stake......?

For one such bet. Just not a big deal.

> Why would this "Exercise" not necessary lead
> to "Winning Money".....?

I never said it wouldn't win money; I said it was "overkill" and not necessary to win money vs. a shoe game where you can back count with impunity. Just look at the Chapter 10 tables of BJA3, with relatively small spreads, back-counting with Hi-Lo!

>Surely, using a
> sensible "Risk of Ruin" factor, then what
> can go wrong.....? Bearing in mind that some UK online
> casinos are currently offering 150% bonuses on
> deposits.....So just creating a "Break Even"
> strategy will show a "Financial Gain"......?

I think I've been very clear, but you don't seem to be capturing the essence of what I've been writing. Maybe this time!

Don

[Calypso]

> Agreed. And what I'm suggesting is that the difference
> is minimal. The Ace plays a role in hundreds of hands,
> and the most important is a natural. Not being able to
> split Aces vs. Ace is not the end of the world.

> See above.

> I understand and concede the point. You were trying to
> quantify the difference. I don't know the answer, but
> I'm sure it's very small.

> Again, computers for playing against shoe games are as
> old as the hills. My contention is that, for
> multi-deck play, the betting accuracy of a count like
> Wong's Halves is more than sufficient. Counting every
> card isn't going to change your edge very much.

> You can't cite isolated examples like that. Of course
> there will be some discrepancies. But, you want the
> global difference. Hi-Opt II needs a side count of
> Aces for betting purposes. Wong's Halves is the best
> for betting.

> For one such bet. Just not a big deal.

> I never said it wouldn't win money; I said it was
> "overkill" and not necessary to win money
> vs. a shoe game where you can back count with
> impunity. Just look at the Chapter 10 tables of BJA3,
> with relatively small spreads, back-counting with
> Hi-Lo!

> I think I've been very clear, but you don't seem to be
> capturing the essence of what I've been writing. Maybe
> this time!

> Don

Ok, thanks for all your time......

Yes, I did mis-read your statement of:

"but not necessary to win money."

I read it as...."Not necessarily will it win you money"

Anyway, I will let you know how it gets on......

Calypso
but not necessary to win money.

[Brett Harris]

Hi Calypso,

I mostly agree with Don, but since this is an intellectual exercise, here is my two cents worth.

I once wrote a program to calculate by brute force all the EOR's (ie betting, and all playing!) for a given game. Then I linked the resulting EORS into a BJ simulator, using Griffin's 'perfect play' scenario. That is the individual EOR for each play was used as a side count, as well as separate insurance and betting EOR's. I found that even in shoe games the SCORE can be doubled (N0 halved), compared to a strong betting count (BRH-I,Halves,etc), but almost all of the gain came from the lifting the playing efficiency up from under 60% up to nearly 100%. The difference between using the betting EOR's instead of a strong point count was negligible.

Also, strangely enough, the results were relatively insensitive to which EOR set was used, that is EOR's calculated for 8 decks worked just fine in 2 decks and vice-versa. I concluded factors such as count distribution, penetration and especially betting spread were much more important than exact EOR values.

So my advice would be to forget exactitude with the betting EOR's, and look up the playing EOR's (ignoring those affected by no-hole-card) in Griffin for the Illustrious-18 and use them as side counts for playing.

For such a flat spread as 1-4 in a game like this, you really need to avoid negative counts. Also your ramp needs to be very steep, almost straight from 1 up to 4 to make such a spread close to optimal.

Brett.