buddha: CVIndex

[buddha]

CVData generated a 6D surrender index of +4 for 8,8 vs. 10 for a level 2 count. This doesn't seem right. All other indices look good. Does this look right?

[Norm Wattenberger]

Doesn't sound unusual. AOII index is +3. But it depends on all the settings. Use TOOLS-EXPORT and send me the file to e-mail me all the settings.

> CVData generated a 6D surrender index of +4 for 8,8
> vs. 10 for a level 2 count. This doesn't seem right.
> All other indices look good. Does this look right?

[dataman]

> Doesn't sound unusual. AOII index is +3. But it
> depends on all the settings. Use TOOLS-EXPORT and send
> me the file to e-mail me all the settings.

For the H17, multideck game, why does basic strategy make the following plays when I show it would first take a positive count before making these plays. My understanding is that basic strategy assumes a count of zero:

Surrender 8.8 vs. A
Surrender 15 vs. A
Surrender 17 vs. A
Double A,8 vs. 6
Double A,7 vs. 2

[Norm Wattenberger]

Basic Strategy does not assume a count of zero. It takes into account the cards in your hand and the dealer upcard. And they may not have a count of zero.


CVCX Online

[dataman]

> Basic Strategy does not assume a count of zero. It
> takes into account the cards in your hand and the
> dealer upcard. And they may not have a count of zero.

> CVCX Online

I stand corrected. Let me put it another way: If I received those hands and dealer upcard off the top of the shoe (or elsewhere early in the shoe just after a neutral count), the TC based on those cards would not be sufficient to make the play called for by basic strategy. This then appears to be a contradiction between basic strategy and the card counting system. Which decision would be correct?

[Don Schlesinger]

> CVData generated a 6D surrender index of +4 for 8,8
> vs. 10 for a level 2 count. This doesn't seem right.
> All other indices look good. Does this look right?

Is DAS permitted or not? If yes, Hi-Lo surrender index is +1. If DAS, then +2. You may have +4 because you're dividing by whole decks instead of half decks. If you assume DAS and dividing by half decks, because of the level-2 count, then your +4 would be right.

Of course, it is troublesome to see you write: "All other indices look good." :-)

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

Depends seems to be the most common answer in BJ. If you are playing heads-up and you receive a specific hand off the top of the deck; then the Basic Strategy Composition Dependent play for the exact rules is always correct. But between the Basic Strategy Total Dependent play (standard BS) and the card counting play; the counting play is more often correct assuming you are using a balanced count and it is Ace-neutral or there are no Aces showing. There are odd exceptions. If the hand is 16v10, one of the Basic Strategy extensions (three-card 16 or rule of 45) is probably more accurate then using the TC; but probably less accurate than using the RC in a true-counted strategy. Some people use the RC for that hand.

> I stand corrected. Let me put it another way: If I
> received those hands and dealer upcard off the top of
> the shoe (or elsewhere early in the shoe just after a
> neutral count), the TC based on those cards would not
> be sufficient to make the play called for by basic
> strategy. This then appears to be a contradiction
> between basic strategy and the card counting system.
> Which decision would be correct?


Serious Blackjack Software

[Don Schlesinger]

> I stand corrected. Let me put it another way: If I
> received those hands and dealer upcard off the top of
> the shoe (or elsewhere early in the shoe just after a
> neutral count), the TC based on those cards would not
> be sufficient to make the play called for by basic
> strategy. This then appears to be a contradiction
> between basic strategy and the card counting system.
> Which decision would be correct?

See BJA3, pp. 44-45 for a discussion of exactly this point. Norm's answer summarizes the same information.

Don

[buddha]

> Is DAS permitted or not? If yes, Hi-Lo surrender index
> is +1. If DAS, then +2. You may have +4 because you're
> dividing by whole decks instead of half decks. If you
> assume DAS and dividing by half decks, because of the
> level-2 count, then your +4 would be right.

> Of course, it is troublesome to see you write:
> "All other indices look good." :-)

> Don

The game is 6D, DAS, RSA, SP4, pen=1.5. I generated the index based on dividing by whole decks (although I actually double my RC and divide by half-decks which amounts to the same thing--but my way prevents Norm's "True Count compression" that comes when dividing the RC by half decks). I was a little confused by your comment above--is the Hi-Lo surrender index of +1 for DAS or NDAS? My +4 index assumes DAS and dividing by whole decks then. Don't know why it's troublesome that the other indices look OK--I say OK in that they're close to the originator's indices and seem to match up well with other counts. I generated the indices because I prefer flooring the TC to rounding or truncating.

[Don Schlesinger]

> The game is 6D, DAS, RSA, SP4, pen=1.5. I generated
> the index based on dividing by whole decks (although I
> actually double my RC and divide by half-decks which
> amounts to the same thing--but my way prevents Norm's
> "True Count compression" that comes when
> dividing the RC by half decks).

OK.

>I was a little
> confused by your comment above--

Me too! :-) I just reread it. Sorry. The "if yes," shbould be "if no."

> is the Hi-Lo surrender
> index of +1 for DAS or NDAS?

NDAS. We surrender more readily if the split is less desirable. If DAS, we wait longer to surrender, because the split is more valuable.

> My +4 index assumes DAS
> and dividing by whole decks then. Don't know why it's
> troublesome that the other indices look OK--I say OK
> in that they're close to the originator's indices and
> seem to match up well with other counts. I generated
> the indices because I prefer flooring the TC to
> rounding or truncating.

So, to reiterate: The Hi-Lo DAS 8,8 v. 10 surredner index is +2. If you use a level-2 count (ostensibly doubling the Hi-Lo values) and divide by whole decks, the index would become +4. But, if you divide by half decks, you'd be back to +2.

Don

[buddha]

> Doesn't sound unusual. AOII index is +3. But it
> depends on all the settings. Use TOOLS-EXPORT and send
> me the file to e-mail me all the settings.

1 other thing: I've never been able to generate the surrender index for 17 vs. A in the 6D, H17, DAS 4.5/6 game even though BS says to surrender. CV always generates Play Hand. Is this right?

[Norm Wattenberger]

Send me the TOOLS-EXPORT file.

> 1 other thing: I've never been able to generate the
> surrender index for 17 vs. A in the 6D, H17, DAS 4.5/6
> game even though BS says to surrender. CV always
> generates Play Hand. Is this right?