> Signifant composition dependent index
> variation has been demonstrated for the hand
> 16 v 10 at the 3-card level of analysis
> (this page.) The existence of this 3-card CD
> variation was suggested by the discrepancy
> between the 2-card indices and the mean
> index for the hand.
> Such a discrepancy also exists for the hand
> 16 v 9. Wong gives a mean index for this
> hand (SD) of +5. Yet he gives CD indices
> (2-card) of +8 and +9 for 10,6 and 9,7,
> respectively. Zenfighter, in recent
> calculations which may have more modern
> parameters gave indices of +7 for both of
> these hands (+6.9 and +7.1, again
> respectively.)
Precise floored indices are:
16 vs 9 = +4
T6 vs 9 = +7
97 vs 9 = +7
in agreement with ZF.
> 16 v 9, while less frequent than 16 v 10, is
> nonetheless a very significant hand, at
> 0.96% of all hands (multideck, Schlesinger
> BJA.)
I've got 0.896% for 6D and 0.904% for 1D without considering 16s generated after splits.
> I believe a 3-card CD analysis of 16 v 9
> would be interesting, and possibly even
> worthwhile for SD players.
3+ = 0.45%
4+ = 0.11%
5+ = 0.02%
6+ = 0.00%
7+ = 0.00%
8+ = 0.00%
9 = 0.00%
The correct BS for this hand is to HIT but further CA refinements say to STAND with 5 or more cards (only in 1D). You can use this variation although I don't know if it's worth learning more indices as in 16vT.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
Bookmarks