Hollywood: Last question regarding this

[Hollywood]

2 deck business. But, something does not make sense to me.

In KO on pages 85 and 86 where they discuss preferred strategy matrix, I have a problem with something they are saying and i'm trying to see if I am understanding it properly.

As I said in a previous post, I am going to play in a 2 deck game for the first time. So I had to go back to KO and review. Prior to this I have only played in 6 deck games.

So under category C indices, which ONLY apply to 2 deck games, it indicates that at -4 we should hit hard 12 against dealer 4 5 6.
and hit hard 13 against dealer 2 3.

Unless i'm just not properly understanding this, these plays do not make sense to me as. They do not seem logical. Can anyone help?
At -4, why would anyone hit a 12 against a dealer 6? I DON'T GET IT.
Anyway I would appreciate any feedback.

Regards,

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> Unless i'm just not properly understanding
> this, these plays do not make sense to me
> as. They do not seem logical. Can anyone
> help?
> At -4, why would anyone hit a 12 against a
> dealer 6? I DON'T GET IT.
> Anyway I would appreciate any feedback.

There are hit/stand indices for many plays. When the count is sufficiently negative, your chances of improving 12 and 13 go up, because there are more small cards in the deck. So, it becomes worth it to hit (usually just once), in an effort to improve the hand, while not risking busting by as much as you normally do.

Don

[Hollywood]

> There are hit/stand indices for many plays.
> When the count is sufficiently negative,
> your chances of improving 12 and 13 go up,
> because there are more small cards in the
> deck. So, it becomes worth it to hit
> (usually just once), in an effort to improve
> the hand, while not risking busting by as
> much as you normally do.

> Don
Don, I absolutly agree with you, but that is exactly why this does not make sense. In KO, the 2 deck game starts out at -4 (2X4=8-4=4) so there is no way that the 2 decks are sufficiently negative at this point. That was exactly why I was asking the question.
What you are saying makes all the sense in the world to me, but if in a 2 deck game we are starting out at that count, then how could this be?
I could understand it, if we started out at -4 and this indice was set up for -12 for instance, it would then make sense to me.
It's not indices i'm questioning, it's when Fuchs and Vancura are saying to use them.
Don, could it be they made a mistake?

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don, I absolutly agree with you, but that
> is exactly why this does not make sense. In
> KO, the 2 deck game starts out at -4
> (2X4=8-4=4) so there is no way that the 2
> decks are sufficiently negative at this
> point.

At what point? The single index given is for an average over the entire two decks, probably at the 50% level. By then, the deck would be at 0, which is, more or less, the correct index for those plays. I'm not agreeing with their methodology, but that's the way they do it.

For what it's worth, for true-counting DD KO, John Auston gives 0, -2, -4 for 12 v. 2, 3, 4, respectively, and -4, -6 for 13 v. 2, 3.

Don