Also, regarding double 11 vs. 10 and split Aces vs. 10: do you think EORs can be useful for this under ENHC?

Yes, the first one can be used to assess properly the EV maximizing index (Hilo TC = 3). Amazingly this index doesn?t behave like a typical American rules one, when more money at risk hits the felt (e.g. doubling). Here the risk averse index skyrockets due to the ENHC rule in effect (lose all vs. a dealer?s BJ). The final result is that the RA index is so high (TC = 8), that for a player who employs these ones, he/she is doing fairly well, ignoring this option completely.
Splitting Aces vs. T yields a positive expectation, while hitting AA vs. T an horrendous EV = -.132808. So as you can see this is basic strategy move.

Given that I?m not satisfied with the degree of exactitude for the EoR?s that I got for these two tables (the player losing all bets make the calculations awkward), I didn?t post them. My bet is that Cacarulo, probably will be able to extract both with exactitude. I?ll ask him.

Can you, please, explain briefly how you generate them.

The employment of a CA is a sine qua non condition to extract them.
Basically what you need, is to select first two strategic options to be tested. E.g. first action H15 vs. T (hit one card) and second option stand on 15 vs. T. The next step is to determine the favorabilities for both logical alternatives so:
Gain 1 ? Gain 2 is your marginal gain/loss from taking the first action over the second.
Now and Ace is removed from the specific subset (one pack or 6 decks), and the calculation is repeated:
Gain 1(ace removed) ? Gain 2 (ace removed) and so on with every denomination. A little bit tedious and long. The entries in the tables are differences in expectations for both selected options (See TOB and Appendix D from BJA3).

Thanks to your interest, these short tables are a novelty. Sometimes it pays to be curious! :-)

Sincerely

Zenfighter