Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 57

Thread: Don Schlesinger: Just what is "Basic Strategy"?

  1. #14
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: My definition

    I'm actually surprised to learn this. The difference with the pairs, in your analogy, is that the other card, which is now split away, is, nonetheless, a card from my ORIGINAL hand!

    And, some describe BS as the EV-maximizing play, given knowledge of nothing more than the dealer's upcard and the cards in your original hand!

    See the problem?

    Don

  2. #15
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: An analogy

    > Well, BS by definition is the best possible
    > strategy that can be used SHORT of counting.
    > So wouldn't it make sense that we would
    > consider the deck infinite, making
    > remaining-deck composition irrelevant?

    You'll pardon me, but I have a quirk, which is to despise infinite-deck BS as being utterly useless.

    When I would know infinite-deck BS, what would I know that would help me play real-world BJ?

    I just never have remotely warmed up to the notion.

    Don

  3. #16
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: An analogy

    > I like this idea. After all, if I understand
    > correctly (which of course, I may not!),
    > these c-d rules are based on the fact that
    > certain cards have been removed from the
    > remaining deck, thus changing the
    > probability of what will be dealt next.
    > This, really, seems to be a form of
    > counting.

    You can use whatever strategy you want. For example STAND on any two cards against any dealer's upcard.
    The idea is to use among all these strategies the "one" that gives you the best EV. Since we can't play the "optimal" strategy the best we can do is to memorize a c-d strategy for the rules we're going to face. When I say c-d I mean c-d/t-d (c-d for the first two cards and t-d for the rest).

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  4. #17
    BruceTC
    Guest

    BruceTC: Re: An analogy

    > You'll pardon me, but I have a quirk, which
    > is to despise infinite-deck BS as being
    > utterly useless.

    > When I would know infinite-deck BS, what
    > would I know that would help me play
    > real-world BJ?

    > I just never have remotely warmed up to the
    > notion.

    > Don

    Don,

    Would infinite-deck BS really be that different from, say, 6-Deck BS, given the same rules?

    I took ET Fan's post to mean that infinite-deck BS would not be that different, and as such, could be adapted to any real game by means of a few strategy adjustments.

    BruceTC

  5. #18
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Answer

    > When I would know infinite-deck BS, what
    > would I know that would help me play
    > real-world BJ?

    You'd know everything, save four marginal exceptions, that many players know as "generic basic." The basic recommended by Wong in Basic Blackjack.

    The exceptions are T2 v 4, A2 v 5, A4 v 4, and surrendering 87 v T. Standing on the first (the inf deck play) would be considered "counter's basic" by MathProf, I believe. Doubling the second and third are incorrect anyway, from a risk-averse point of view (inf basic is hit), at least for four or more decks. (Not sure about one or two decks.) It may even be possible surrendering 87 V T is correct r-a basic for four decks.

    In other words, pending further study, my guess is you're probably better off using infinite deck basic against a shoe, than using either the c-d, or the c-d/t-d (as outlined by Cacarulo) basic tailored for the number of decks at hand.

    ETF

  6. #19
    BruceTC
    Guest

    BruceTC: Re: An analogy

    > The idea is to use among all these
    > strategies the "one" that gives
    > you the best EV. Since we can't play the
    > "optimal" strategy the best we can
    > do is to memorize a c-d strategy for the
    > rules we're going to face. When I say c-d I
    > mean c-d/t-d (c-d for the first two cards
    > and t-d for the rest).

    I understand, Cacarulo, and that is what I do for actual games. I know the c-d rules for single-deck, but I have yet to learn and memorize the specific c-d rules for 6-Deck. Right now, I use only t-d BS for 6-Deck (except for, of course, splitting pairs). I will make a point of learning the rest. Thanks :^)

    > You can use whatever strategy you want. For
    > example STAND on any two cards against any
    > dealer's upcard.

    Ahh.... You must be referring to the "Austin Powers" method of Blackjack. ;^)

    BruceTC

  7. #20
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Answer

    > In other words, pending further study, my
    > guess is you're probably better off using
    > infinite deck basic against a shoe, than
    > using either the c-d, or the c-d/t-d (as
    > outlined by Cacarulo) basic tailored for the
    > number of decks at hand.

    Yes but if you're playing shoes (say 8D) then my c-d/t-d won't be any different from using the infinite deck basic.
    The question is: When do we need BS? If we are playing against a slot machine with some advantage off-the-top I'll try to do my best even if I have to memorize 2-card and 3-card composition plays.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  8. #21
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Correction

    Since Wong's "Generic Strategy" is total dependant, it would play T2 v 4 as stand, and 87 v T as surrender. I was also surprised to find A2 v 5 listed by Wong as "hit." (I'm looking at the chart in "Blackjack Secrets.") So there's only one difference between infinite deck basic, and the generic basic listed in "Blackjack Secrets" and "Basic Blackjack."

    Infinite deck basic (as well as r-a basic) on A4 v 4 is HIT, while generic basic is to DOUBLE. Everything else is the same.

    ETF

  9. #22
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Semantics

    > Yes but if you're playing shoes (say 8D)
    > then my c-d/t-d won't be any different from
    > using the infinite deck basic.
    > The question is: When do we need BS? If we
    > are playing against a slot machine with some
    > advantage off-the-top I'll try to do my best
    > even if I have to memorize 2-card and 3-card
    > composition plays.

    Agree 100%. I'm not saying you shouldn't go to the trouble of learning 2 or 3 card composition plays, I'm just arguing in favor of calling these exceptions to basic, instead of part and parcel.

    Looking at these plays as exceptions might make them easier to understand and recall. You can look at the cards involved, and appreciate how their removal affects the decision.

    ETF

  10. #23
    Kasey
    Guest

    Kasey: Re: I think of it as an "advanced play"

    > Cowardly answer! :-)

    > You're publishing an article that discusses
    > the off-the-top house edge in a SD game
    > against a BS player. You offer two figures:
    > one for t-d BS and one for c-d BS. Into
    > which bin does standing on 7,7, v. 10 go?

    > Now, weasel out of that one! :-)

    Weasel words on the way.

    First, I'm very excited about publishing my article!

    Second, I would put 7,7 vs. 10 into composition dependent. Your post leaves me with the impression I've fallen into a newbie trap here, so I'm waiting for it to snap shut.

    Third, I was thinking about the BS heirarchy from my previous post:

    1) Surrender?
    2) Split?
    3) Double?
    4) Hit?

    and I realized 8,8 vs. 10 breaks my own BS rules!

    It should be:

    1) Split?
    2) Surrender?
    3) Double?
    4) Hit?

    This is odd, because I'm pretty certain most BJ books list it the first way.

    Kasey

  11. #24
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: My definition

    > I'm actually surprised to learn this. The
    > difference with the pairs, in your analogy,
    > is that the other card, which is now split
    > away, is, nonetheless, a card from my
    > ORIGINAL hand!

    BS does not care about the other card. Once you have split (according to BS) you're left with two NEW hands which "must" be considered independent.
    After getting the first card for the first pair you may choose between c-d or t-d. C-d is more precise.
    The same goes with the second pair.

    > And, some describe BS as the EV-maximizing
    > play, given knowledge of nothing more than
    > the dealer's upcard and the cards in your
    > original hand !

    > See the problem?

    I would change that a little: "given knowledge of nothing more than the dealer's upcard and the first two cards!. After splitting you play each hand split as a new hand comprised of two cards against the same dealer's upcard" (I know it can be worded better )

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  12. #25
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: My definition

    > BS does not care about the other card. Once
    > you have split (according to BS) you're left
    > with two NEW hands which "must" be
    > considered independent.
    > After getting the first card for the first
    > pair you may choose between c-d or t-d. C-d
    > is more precise.
    > The same goes with the second pair.

    OK. If that's the way it's done.

    > I would change that a little: "given
    > knowledge of nothing more than the dealer's
    > upcard and the first two cards!. After
    > splitting you play each hand split as a new
    > hand comprised of two cards against the same
    > dealer's upcard" (I know it can be
    > worded better )

    Perfectly clear.

    Don


  13. #26
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: I think of it as an "advanced play"

    > First, I'm very excited about publishing my
    > article!

    LOL! :-)

    > Second, I would put 7,7 vs. 10 into
    > composition dependent. Your post leaves me
    > with the impression I've fallen into a
    > newbie trap here, so I'm waiting for it to
    > snap shut.

    No, no trap. It's just that, as such, it would be somewhat different than any other play, in that pairs and soft totals, of necessity, must consider the individual cards. So, even when you claim to be playing "just" t-d BS, you still learn the pairs and soft totals. the latter should have the "exemption I spoke about, and only hit, stand, and hard double decisions should be classified as t-d or c-d.

    I just wonder, when someone like Griffin states that SD EV is 0.00, but grows to +0.04 for the player with c-d BS, if he has included 7,7 v. 10 in the first number or the second. And, I'm guessing it's the first. Practically, there's no difference out to about the fifth decimal, but theoretically, I'd like to know what he did.

    > Third, I was thinking about the BS heirarchy [hierarchy!] from my previous post:

    > 1) Surrender?
    > 2) Split?
    > 3) Double?
    > 4) Hit?

    > and I realized 8,8 vs. 10 breaks my own BS
    > rules!

    > It should be:

    > 1) Split?
    > 2) Surrender?
    > 3) Double?
    > 4) Hit?

    > This is odd, because I'm pretty certain most
    > BJ books list it the first way.

    It's not odd, it's just that you were right the first time! Before any other decision (except insurance, which you didn't list), you should first decide if you're going to surrender. That comes before pairs!

    Don

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.