> If I were to define what I would consider as
> Basic Strategy, I would use total dependent
> strategy. I would treat two card
> compositions as "Fine Points" of
> Basic Strategy. I think I first picked up
> this term from Revere's book and I think it
> is a good one. So in one sense, we have tow
> form of Basic: the basic Basic, and the Fine
> Points.

> There are, of course, multi-card exceptions
> ot BS. But if we try to list all of these,
> we have a strategy which is hardly basic. In
> fact, it would be more difficult to master,
> and less useful, than elementary counting
> strategies.

> I do not treat any pairs as fine-points. We
> have to list to separate entry for pairs
> anyways. So in particular, I would have the
> 77v10 Stand in Single Deck as part of the
> BS.

> I also treat 16v10 differently:
> "Surrender if possible, otherwise
> Stand. Fine-Points: Hit 10-6 and 9-7."

In fact what you're doing here is dividing BS into two or three parts:

1) Basic basic (t-d)
2) Finer points
3) Splits

But when you're going to put real money you'll need all parts together. And now, you're into my definition which is (c-d) + t-d after the first two cards.
For me basic strategy is the best you can do without counting cards.

> Finally, I would use the optimal
> EV-maximizing strategy off the top of the
> deck as the criterion for the Basic
> Strategy, only because this is what is
> Basic.

Agree but haven't analyzed the min-cost strategy yet

Good to see you around.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo