harry: surrender against ace

[Don Schlesinger]

> Stand on the remaining 3 or more card totals
> of 16 since he asked for the total-dependent
> strategy not just the initial strategy.

You're confused. "Total-dependent" means adding up the two crads without respect to which cards they are. My not distinguishing 10-3 from 9-4 from 8-5 from 7-6, but rather calling everything 13, is using total-dependent strategy instead of composition-dependent strategy -- and I'm still on the original hand!

Now, if my original two cards add to 16, I should surrender. If surrender is not permitted, I should hit my two-card 16.

> As was discussed on the CompuSim page for
> BJMath, if you take out the 2-card hands
> from the strategy calculations, the strategy
> for 16 vs 10 is Stand. Since the Wizard's
> tables suggest hitting when not surrendering
> - they are incorrect if surrender is
> allowed.

One of us must be very confused. You say the wizard suggests hitting when not surrendering. I assume we don't surrender because we aren't allowed to surrender -- otherwise we would surrender!!

So, how can they be incorrect when "surrender is allowed," since we'd be surrendering in that case??

Don

[MGP]

> You're confused.

Not really. As usual we are just talking about different things...

> "Total-dependent"
> means adding up the two crads without
> respect to which cards they are. My not
> distinguishing 10-3 from 9-4 from 8-5 from
> 7-6, but rather calling everything 13, is
> using total-dependent strategy instead of
> composition-dependent strategy -- and I'm
> still on the original hand!

> Now, if my original two cards add to 16, I
> should surrender.

Agree.

> If surrender is not
> permitted, I should hit my two-card 16.

> One of us must be very confused. You say the
> wizard suggests hitting when not
> surrendering. I assume we don't surrender
> because we aren't allowed to surrender --
> otherwise we would surrender!!

As you know, there are 2 situations in which you're not allowed to surrender - a game in which no surrender is allowed at all, which is what you are referring to, in which case you should hit.

You're also not allowed to surrender 3 card hands, which is what I was referring to... So what do you do when you get a 3 or more card 16 vs 10? Most people I assume default to the total dependent strategy listed for their remaining hands.

> So, how can they be incorrect when
> "surrender is allowed," since we'd
> be surrendering in that case??

Hopefully to clarify my comments once and for all, for 16 vs 10, if you are playing a total dependent strategy and surrender is not allowed at all for the game, then hit. If surrender is allowed then surrender all your 2-card 16's (i.e. because it's allowed) and stand on the remaining hands with a total of 16 vs 10 (for which surrender is not allowed).

If you are playing a 2-card dependent strategy - then play as directed for each of the 2-card 16's. For the remaining 3 or more card hands which I assume are played according to a total dependent strategy and not a composition strategy, you should stand on 16 vs 10, whether or not surrender is allowed.

Since I don't really play, then I may be misunderstanding how people use the strategies and how many cards they allow surrender on. If I'm wrong then you're right I am confused and just disregard my comments.

Thanks,
MGP

[Don Schlesinger]

... all you've done is restate c-d strategy for 16 vs. 10. The surrender aspect is a canard -- it has nothing to do with the other part of the strategy.

And, just reiterating my opinion -- when you make a chart such as 16 vs. 10 and then say, "surrender if you can; if you can't hit," it is pretty much understood that you're talking about the original hand.

Don

[Cacarulo]

> You're confused. "Total-dependent"
> means adding up the two crads without
> respect to which cards they are. My not
> distinguishing 10-3 from 9-4 from 8-5 from
> 7-6, but rather calling everything 13, is
> using total-dependent strategy instead of
> composition-dependent strategy -- and I'm
> still on the original hand!

Sorry Don, but I believe "Total-dependent" means adding up any number of cards (2, 3, 4, etc.).
This is probably why you are not understanding each other.

The correct "overall" strategy for 16vT (averaging through all totals of 16) is to "HIT" when Surrender is not allowed. Now, when Surrender is allowed the correct "overall" strategy is to STAND. I did a study a while back which was posted on BJMath.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Don Schlesinger]

> The correct "overall" strategy for
> 16vT (averaging through all totals of 16) is
> to "HIT" when Surrender is not
> allowed. Now, when Surrender is allowed the
> correct "overall" strategy is to
> STAND. I did a study a while back which was
> posted on BJMath.

Yes, I understand this. What I'm trying to point out is that when you surrender 16 v. 10 it is always a two-card 16. So, it goes without saying that, if surrender is permitted, you will always be making a hit/stand decision on multi-card 16s, and we all know that now you stand.

I think t-d and c-d designations become confusing in this sense, but I realize that what you're saying is true.

Don

[Cacarulo]

> Anytime

> 8,8 vs A
> 2D H17 DOA NDAS LS
> SPL1 -0.505294
> SPL2 -0.501152
> SPL3 -0.500507

> This is interesting since the trend suggests
> that if you are allowed to split 4 times it
> may change the strategy, unfortunately I
> don't have that programmed in yet - Cacarulo
> might, I can't remember if he does or not...

No, it does not change. Even if you were allowed to split 7 times!. The EV is around -0.5004 so surrender is still the best choice.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Don Schlesinger]

> No, it does not change. Even if you were
> allowed to split 7 times!. The EV is around
> -0.5004 so surrender is still the best
> choice.

In general, it's safe to assume that for splits beyond three, we hardly see a change for any play, because the probability of splitting to, say, 5 or 6 hands is so remote as to not be worth discussing.

Don

[Cacarulo]

> In general, it's safe to assume that for
> splits beyond three, we hardly see a change
> for any play, because the probability of
> splitting to, say, 5 or 6 hands is so remote
> as to not be worth discussing.

Right, but this play was so close that it got me curious

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Nifty_4952]

> There are two forms of surrender against an
> ace (or ten). Early surrender (ES - now
> extremely rare) means being given the option
> to surrender before the dealer checks for
> blackjack. Late surrender (LS - the more
> common form) means being given the option
> only after the dealer checks for blackjack.

> In games where the dealer stands on all 17s,
> basic strategy against an ace is to late
> surrender 16 (except 8-8). In games where
> the dealer hits soft 17s, basic strategy
> against the ace is to late surrender 15, 16
> (including 8-8) and 17. With early surrender
> you would surrender against an ace far more
> often, but I don't have the strategy handy.

> If you count cards there are also times when
> it's appropriate to deviate from the above
> basic strategy. In particular Don's Fab 4
> surrender indices will get you most of the
> gain available from the late surrender rule.

With LS,H17 should you still surrender 15,16,17,vs A if the dealer still takes your total bet if he/she gets a blackjack? eg. the surrender doesnt count if the dealer gets a blackjack, and you lose your total bet not half.

[Magician]

> With LS,H17 should you still surrender
> 15,16,17,vs A if the dealer still takes your
> total bet if he/she gets a blackjack? eg.
> the surrender doesnt count if the dealer
> gets a blackjack, and you lose your total
> bet not half.

That is what the "late" in LS means. If surrendering would save you from a dealer blackjack it's called "early" surrender and you should surrender even more hands (see Dog Hand's response).

[Dog Hand]

With early surrender you would surrender against an ace far more often, but I don't have the strategy handy.

Magician and Harry:

According to Bryce Carlson's Blackjack for Blood, Table 4.6 (pg. 43), when Early Surrender is offered, Basic Strategy says to surrender hard totals of 5-7 and 13-17 vs. an A, and 14-16 vs. a 10 (soft totals should NOT be surrendered). Although Carlson was referring specifically to the 1-deck game, other authors give very similar recommendations. For example, page 147 of Knock-Out Blackjack, by Vancura and Fuchs, gives the same values as above, with the additional recommendation to surrender hard 16 (but NOT 8-8) vs. 9. Furthermore, Vancura and Fuchs claim that early surrender is worth 0.63% to the BS player.

Hope this answers your question!

Dog Hand