Why is it that with a 2D game, you split 6's vs 7 and split 7's vs 8?
Why is it that with a 2D game, you split 6's vs 7 and split 7's vs 8?
> Why is it that with a 2D game, you split 6's
> vs 7 and split 7's vs 8?
Actually, one acronym: DAS. You hope that you can turn at least one half of those splits into a 10 or 11 for a successful double, and it works out just often enough to make the EV higher than simply hitting -- barely.
With no DAS, the correct BS is to not split.
> Why is it that with a 2D game, you split 6's
> vs 7 and split 7's vs 8?
Needs to be DAS, as well. Short answer (and not being facetious): Because the expectation for splitting is greater than the e.v. for hitting.
Don
> Needs to be DAS, as well. Short answer (and
> not being facetious): Because the
> expectation for splitting is greater than
> the e.v. for hitting.
> Don
Then the EV must be different for 6-deck, since the charts show NOT splitting in the above scenario. This is the basis for my original question. Why not treat splitting the same for 2D and 6D alike?
> Then the EV must be different for 6-deck,
> since the charts show NOT splitting in the
> above scenario. This is the basis for my
> original question. Why not treat splitting
> the same for 2D and 6D alike?
Once again, at the risk of incurring your wrath, 2-deck BS is for two decks and 6-deck BS is for 6 decks. There are several differences. These are two of them. There are others.
Don
> Then the EV must be different for 6-deck,
> since the charts show NOT splitting in the
> above scenario. This is the basis for my
> original question. Why not treat splitting
> the same for 2D and 6D alike?
You could. Just be aware that, as Don pointed out, there are several basic strategy plays that change according to the number of decks and/or the rules of the particular game. If you use a "one-size-fits-all" basic strategy, then you are giving up some EV in the process.
Many people learn the correct strategy for the type of game they play the most often, and use that strategy for everything. If you don't play the other types of games too often, this doesn't really give up a large amount of EV.
In the two-deck game (and the example of 6-6 vs 7), there are only six 6s and seven 7s remaining in the deck, out of the 101 remaining cards. That's just 13 cards that will get you to 18 or 19 by hitting once. An 18 or 19 will win quite a few hands against a dealer's 7, but you're only going to get those totals 13/101 (.12871) times on a one-card hit. (Obviously, you're not limited to hitting only once).
In the six-deck game, twenty-two 6s and twenty-three 7s remain, out of 309 cards. That makes a ratio of 45/309 (.14563) cards that will get you to 18 or 19 on a one-card hit. Your chances of a successful one-card hit have improved enough (.14563 vs .12871) to make hitting the better play.
You should also notice that sixes will improve your hands when your first "hit" card is an Ace, two, or three, as in 6-6-A-6. Sevens, along the same lines, will improve those hands in which your first "hit" card is an Ace or a 2, as in 6-6-2-7. So, all of those outcomes become more likely in the 6d game than in the 2d game.
The ability to DAS at will is nice because it's an option you only have to take when the conditions are favorable. In the DD game, you would have seen something like 6-6-(S)-4 or 6-6-(S)-5 vs a 7 when you took advantage of the DAS. Again, it's the ratio of "good" cards vs "bad" cards that are available to you. You've "used up" four bad (or at least mediocre ) cards, so your DAS outlook has improved. Apparently, removing only four bad cards from the possible outcomes in a 6-deck game won't be enough to help make splitting the best play.
All of these improvements (by that I mean going from two decks to six) can and will be offset by any improvement the dealer can expect to get in his hand, too. At a glance, it looks like the dealer's hand will improve as the ratio of 6s and 7s to all other ranks remaining in the deck increases. In other words,with nothing but 6s and 7s left in the deck, the dealer will win (or push) with 19s, 20s or 21s.
The thinking is similar for 7-7 vs 8. It appears that the "crummy" cards you might receive in one hand after splitting actually improve the outlook for the second hand (or vice versa). The difference in the 2d game is more significant than in the 6d game due to the bigger change in ratios you'd find in the 2d game. If simply hitting 7-7 vs 8 (or standing) is a losing proposition, then the more times you can "push" by winning one hand of a split while losing the other, the better off you are.
This whole concept is also the real basis for when we use indexes to alter basic strategy. Surpassing an index really means that, on average, the ratio of some cards to others in the remaining deck(s) has changed significantly enough that a change to BS is favorable.
None of this would matter at all if the outcomes based on your various options for this particular play weren't already so darn close in the first place.
Good enough for me, too. I never doubted basic strat tables. I just appreciate the game better when I have a better understanding of how and why.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks