Hi.
Rules are 6D, S17, DAS, RS, ENHC (takes all) and early surrender vs. Ten.
You have 8,8 vs. 10. BS says to surrender.
The question is what the HiLo true count shoud be and what deficit of aces should be in order to not surrender and split?
Thanks in advance,
Luck.
Garry Baldy.
> Hi.
> Rules are 6D, S17, DAS, RS, ENHC (takes all)
> and early surrender vs. Ten.
> You have 8,8 vs. 10. BS says to surrender.
> The question is what the HiLo true count
> shoud be and what deficit of aces should be
> in order to not surrender and split?
When you write, "in order to not surrender AND split," do you mean "In order to not surrender, but to split instead"? That wouldn't make any sense, because with ENHC, you would never split 8s v. 10 at any count.
I'm confused by your question.
Don
> Hi.
> Rules are 6D, S17, DAS, RS, ENHC (takes all)
> and early surrender vs. Ten.
> You have 8,8 vs. 10. BS says to surrender.
> The question is what the HiLo true count
> shoud be and what deficit of aces should be
> in order to not surrender and split?
> Thanks in advance,
I think splitting should never be advisable in this situation. However, an index at which hitting is better than ES would be around -6.4 (Hi-Lo).
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
I get Surrender >=-7 for 88vT ES10. Pull eight Aces out of the shoe and it's -4. If you mean deficit of Aces by penetration I'm not set up for that. I might add it but there isn't much call for it. And in this case it isn't worth it.
I think we match then as I was flooring.
norm
> I think splitting should never be advisable
> in this situation. However, an index at
> which hitting is better than ES would be
> around -6.4 (Hi-Lo).
> Sincerely,
> Cacarulo
> I think splitting should never be advisable
> in this situation.
Which is why I wrote what I did. So, we all agree.
> However, an index at
> which hitting is better than ES would be
> around -6.4 (Hi-Lo).
Yes, surely, that's possible. Again, to clarify, at the extremely unlikely situation of true count <-6 or <-7 (why are you playing at all, at this point??), hitting (not splitting!) is superior to surrendering.
But, I wonder if, considering risk-aversion (no variance when we surrender), the index isn't lower still.
Don
Thanks a lot. The reason why I asked this is because one my friend (very capable counter) once told me that at some extreme minus counts and very big deficit of aces (something like -5 per deck but I'm not sure) it would be correct to SPLIT, not hit the hand.
His reasoning was that splitting is correct given Hole Card rule (checked for BJ). So, he stated, when a lot of aces were dealt (and a minus count) there will be not much difference between HC and ENHC conditions. Just because probabilty of dealer's BJ decreased greatly.
I was unable to sim it and I don't know if he calculated this somehow or he's just make this play by hunch. But he's smart player and usually I trust him.
Anyway I agree that this is not very important play by any sense even if consider it as a cover. Just wanted to check.
Luck.
Garry Baldy.
His reasoning was that splitting is correct given Hole Card rule (checked for BJ). So, he stated, when a lot of aces were dealt (and a minus count) there will be not much difference between HC and ENHC conditions. Just because probabilty of dealer's BJ decreased greatly.
Interesting theory, but it ignores the fact that the deck is quite altered at such a point and the Ace has other functions than creating a BJ. If you remove all the Aces the answer is still never split. I think this may be because Ace is a good card for the player.
> If you
> remove all the Aces the answer is still
> never split. I think this may be because Ace
> is a good card for the player.
Yes, certainly. No aces hurts the dealer, because he can't have a natural, but he can have all the tens he wants, for 20. Meanwhile, deprived of the aces, the player can't even make 19, without a lucky draw.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks