Thread: Jay: A-7 Basic Strategy Question

1. Jay: A-7 Basic Strategy Question

I am what you might call an "experienced recreational" counter using KO red chipping 1 - 6 spread in SD & DD. Still, knowing that the math has been done in sims over & over, I find it really hard to draw to soft 18 against 9, 10, A. I'm guessing some newer players might share my trepidation on this decision. Could someone help by posting the expectations? I could use the positive reinforcement. Thanks.

Jay

2. stainless steel rat: Re: A-7 Basic Strategy Question

> I am what you might call an
> "experienced recreational" counter
> using KO red chipping 1 - 6 spread in SD
> & DD. Still, knowing that the math has
> been done in sims over & over, I find it
> really hard to draw to soft 18 against 9,
> 10, A. I'm guessing some newer players might
> share my trepidation on this decision. Could
> someone help by posting the expectations? I
> could use the positive reinforcement.
> Thanks.

> Jay

Here goes, from wizard of odds, assuming infinite deck...

A-7 vs 9 stand: -.183 hit: -.101
A-7 vs X stand: -.178 hit: -.144
A-7 vs A stand: -.100 hit: -.006

Those are your EV numbers. Anything negative means you expect to lose that fraction of your bet, given those cards and that action. Note that in _every_ case, the EV for hitting is better (loses less) than the EV for standing. Note also that the A-7 vs 9-X-A is a _losing_ hand overall. Hitting reduces your overall losses as opposed to winning anything.

hope that helps.

www.wizardofodds.com has a lot of this stuff that can help...

3. stainless steel rat: one correction (typo)

> Here goes, from wizard of odds, assuming
> infinite deck...

> A-7 vs 9 stand: -.183 hit: -.101
> A-7 vs X stand: -.178 hit: -.144
> A-7 vs A stand: -.100 hit: -.006

A-7 vs A stand: -.100 hit: -.093

Got on wrong line of the chart.

Note that A-7 vs A is _very_ close, changing the EV by about .01 or a dime on a 10 buck bet. The other two are a bit more definite...
> Those are your EV numbers. Anything negative
> means you expect to lose that fraction of
> your bet, given those cards and that action.
> Note that in _every_ case, the EV for
> hitting is better (loses less) than the EV
> for standing. Note also that the A-7 vs
> 9-X-A is a _losing_ hand overall. Hitting
> reduces your overall losses as opposed to
> winning anything.

> hope that helps.

> www.wizardofodds.com has a lot of this stuff
> that can help...

4. Don Schlesinger: Re: A-7 Basic Strategy Question

> I am what you might call an
> "experienced recreational" counter
> using KO red chipping 1 - 6 spread in SD
> & DD. Still, knowing that the math has
> been done in sims over & over, I find it
> really hard to draw to soft 18 against 9,
> 10, A.

The response from "stainless" quotes infinite-deck e.v.s, but you mention playing SD and DD. There is quite a difference in the expectations, and you should know that it is correct BS to stand on A,7 v. A in SD, when the dealer stands on soft 17.

Don

5. Don Schlesinger: One more thing

It is also correct BS, in DD, to stand on multi-card soft 18 v. A, if the dealer stands on soft 17.

Don

6. Cacarulo: Re: A-7 Basic Strategy Question

Everything Don has said is absolutely correct and here are the expectations that you can find in BJA3:

```1D,S17
------
Stand       Hit
A,7 v A  -0.101015   -0.108386 ==> Stand

1D,H17
------
Stand       Hit
A,7 v A  -0.223909   -0.173387 ==> Hit

2D,S17
------
Stand       Hit
A,7 v A  -0.100502   -0.100359 ==> Hit*

*But you STAND on multi-card S18 v A!

2D,H17
------
Stand       Hit
A,7 v A  -0.224703   -0.165428 ==> Hit```

Sincerely,
Cac

7. disadvantageplayer: check out the "ultimate gambit"...

...chapter in ian andersens "burning the tables in las vegas" for an interesting analysis of using this very play, along with a slew of others, as cover. as i recall standing on A,7 vs 9,10,A cost him just over \$3 an hour at his level of play (\$100/hand per 100 hands). i can't remember if this was for a shoe game though...

DP

8. Don Schlesinger: Re: check out the "ultimate gambit"...

> ...chapter in ian andersens "burning
> the tables in las vegas" for an
> interesting analysis of using this very
> play, along with a slew of others, as cover.
> as i recall standing on A,7 vs 9,10,A cost
> him just over \$3 an hour at his level of
> play (\$100/hand per 100 hands). i can't
> remember if this was for a shoe game
> though...

See values on p. 98, Table 7.3, of BJA3.

Don

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•