Sporadically, on other sites, I've engaged in conversations about a topic that people actually get very passionate over. So, I thought I'd bring it to our pages here. What should be the definition of "basic strategy "? Now, before you react: "What a silly question; everyone knows what basic strategy is," permit me to point out that, technically, that simply isn't true.

As a start, we observe that the "classic" definition of BS is the decision, off the top of the pack, that maximizes the expectation (EV) of the hand we are playing, given knowledge of only our holding and the dealer's upcard. This, of course, is the "zero-memory" nature of BS. We aren't permitted to note any other cards in anyone else's hand. I'll return to this a little later.

Now, the above seems simple enough, until we realize that total-dependent BS is different from composition-dependent BS. Already, a new wrinkle! We all know that we're supposed to stand with 12 v. 4, however that rule assumes that we're blind to the nature of that 12. Is it 7,5; 8,4; 9,3; or 10-2 (not to mention 6,6, which is an entirely different can of worms!). So, as the name implies, total-dependent BS does not take into account the actual two cards that comprise the hand, but rather just the total that they add to.

If, instead, we treat those two cards as separate entities, to be differentiated, one from the other, we learn that not all 12s are created equally! Indeed, in a single-deck game, we note that a holding of 10,2 v. 4 should be hit, the EV being -0.19396 in an s17 game, compared to -0.21184 for standing (thanks to Cacarulo for these!). And, of course, there are many such composition-dependent plays.

But, where do we draw the line? If we're "permitted" to distinguish both cards in our initial holding, for the purposes of "basic" strategy, are we also permitted to observe a third, hit card? A fourth? Where does it end? Purists might say, "never," but this seems quite absurd to me. The dictionary defines "basic" as: "fundamental; serving as a starting point; an essential element or basis." Is it possible that learning a couple of hundred (thousand?!) different incarantions of 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-or-more-card combinations versus various dealer upcards could ever remotely qualify as "basic" in any sane person's mind? I think not!

So, where do we draw the line? How "basic" does composition-dependent BS have to be to remain basic strategy? That's my first question. The second is even thornier.

What do we do about pairs? I think we need to accept that, for pairs, we shouldn't consider 6,6; 8,8; or 3,3 as "composition" of the hand. We need to specify, right at the outset, that these simply are not 12, or 16, or 6. So, pairs get a kind of exemption; they're "excused" from being "composition-dependent," in the strict sense of the term. They get their own section of the color-coded BS charts we all cut our teeth on, and they are learned separately, as are the soft totals, such as A,6. (As a quick aside, I have always been violently opposed to calling this "soft seventeen," as the hand has nothing whatever to do with "17," and should never be considered as such. But, I digress.)

So, now, we move on to the following: If pairs get an "exemption" from being considered as composition-dependent, it's because we just want to consider, for any holding, if the cards should be split or not split. If the answer is don't split, then we revert back to the total (12, 16, 6) and play the hand according to total-dependent BS, right? Well, almost. What about 7,7 v. 10, in SD? Once we decide that we're not splitting this pair, what gives us the right to no longer consider this a "regular" 14 and stand? Just because this apparently c-d play happens to fall in the pairs section of the chart, why does it become "standard fare," in the t-d repertoire of every SD player? So, question number two is: Do you consider standing on 7,7 v. 10 in SD to be a composition-dependent play or not? If you're wondering what difference it makes how we consider it, my question is whether to include the play in the EV for SD only when invoking c-d plays, or for "normal," t-d EV.

Finally, and here's where things get out of control, how should we treat the hit cards we see after we split pairs? Suppose I know that it's correct c-d BS to stand on most multi-card holdings of 16 v.10. Suppose I split a pair of 8s against the dealer's 10 and hit the first 8 with a 4 and then a 5. On the second 8, I draw another 8, but I may not resplit. Does BS say to hit or stand on my 16? Well, t-d BS says to hit. So does c-d BS if I put on blinders and look squarely at my second hand, without regard to the cards to my right! But, those are MY cards, in MY hand, so why can't I look at them? If I do, then I stand on my 8,8 v. 10, because I also see another 8, a 4, and a 5.

So, how many cards in split hands am I allowed to reckon before "basic" turns hopelessly complicated? Again, the purists say "all of them"! So, if I'm allowed splits to four hands, and, after playing the first three hands there are, say, 13 cards lying on the table, and I now am playing my fourth hand, I'm supposed to include knowledge of all of those previous cards in the play of the current hand and still invoke "basic" strategy? Gimme a break! Permit me to claim how utterly ridiculous that concept is to me.

The purists rebel: Where do we draw the line? May you have knowledge, at the very least, of the card you originally split away from the beginning hand? Yes, I concede. It was one of the first two cards you received. What about one hit card to that new hand? Hmm. Problem. If I allow one, why not two? If two, why not three? Do you see where we're going? Why not 13?! Why not, indeed? And, if you permit the 13, then I ask, when I'm at the table with one other player, and he plays his hand and I see the cards in it, how ridiculous is it to claim that I absolutely may not use knowledge of those cards in the play of my own hand and still invoke "basic" strategy, but, alternatively, if I happen to split pairs three times and have 15 or 16 cards lying around, it's fine and dandy for me to reckon them all in the play of my hands, because, er, they belong to me?!

Your answers to any or all of the above questions are eagerly solicited. In short, just what would you want us researchers and authors to call "basic strategy"?