Seven card Charlie rule contradiction on the Wizard of Odds?

[Picasso]

According to the Wizard of odds, the Charlie rule (in this case the 7 card Charlie) modifies the basic strategy, but there appears to be a contradiction on his site. Look at the basic strategy for Playtech Blackjack surrender:
http://wizardofodds.com/online-gambl...r-strategy.png
Playtech Blackjack surrender does have the 7 card Charlie rule
BUT
In the following Charlie strategy
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/im...harlie-hsd.gif (6 cards double after split) (he does mention 7 cards would be the same)
the Wizard has us not splitting 33 vs 2
AND FURTHER
http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/im...harlie-hsd.gif
The wizard has us hitting (instead of doubling) A2 and A3 vs 5 or 6, A4 vs 4 or 5, A5 vs 4)

Which is correct?

(full Charlie page wizard: http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackj...ategy/charlie/ )
(full Playtech page wizard http://wizardofodds.com/online-gambling/playtech/ )

Thanks for your help or any feedback on this one!

[NotEnoughHeat]

The wizard actually doesn't address splitting when it comes to 7 card charlie. His charts are only for 5 and 6, with and without DAS. So the 33 vs 2 is a non-issue. However the large amounts of doubles replaced by hits is a huge issue I don't have the answers to. Hopefully someone else who knows will come by and answer.

[Picasso]

Thanks NotEnoughHeat for your feedback. For the 33 vs 2, he does mention that the 6 card Charlie would be the same as a 7 card Charlie. I agree that not doubling A2 and A3 vs 5 or 6, A4 vs 4 or 5, A5 vs 4) is a concern, but is it correct (?), especially when it’s not reflected in his Blackjack Playtech Surrender review?

If anyone has a copy of Wong’s «Basic Strategy», the Wizard does mention that this would be the reference to follow on Charlie. Unfortunately, I only have Wong’s «Professional Blackjack», although this first book may be a «gift to self» for Christmas.

[moo321]

This is going to be completely immaterial. You just need to know how to play a few multi-card hands.

[Norm]

"The writer makes a fair point. My defence is that the seven-card Charlie rule is worth so little that I didn't want to burden my readers of the Playtech strategy with those exceptions. Much like in video poker, I don't claim my strategies are optimal, but strive to balance power and simplicity.

When I get back home I'll footnote the Playtech strategy, so to appease my more perfectionist readers.

Mike"

[moo321]

"The writer makes a fair point. My defence is that the seven-card Charlie rule is worth so little that I didn't want to burden my readers of the Playtech strategy with those exceptions. Much like in video poker, I don't claim my strategies are optimal, but strive to balance power and simplicity.

When I get back home I'll footnote the Playtech strategy, so to appease my more perfectionist readers.

Mike"

It's sort of like the "Should I hit 10,6 v. 10 in a 6 deck shoe off the top? What about 10,2,2,2, or 10,5,A?"

Or "I play 10 hours a year and I have a $1000 bankroll. Should I switch to Hi-Opt II?"

[Picasso]

"The writer makes a fair point. My defence is that the seven-card Charlie rule is worth so little that I didn't want to burden my readers of the Playtech strategy with those exceptions. Much like in video poker, I don't claim my strategies are optimal, but strive to balance power and simplicity.

When I get back home I'll footnote the Playtech strategy, so to appease my more perfectionist readers.

Mike"

Thank you very much Mike (and Norm for sharing), I'm the more perfectionist of the readers (at least I'm paying attention). I shall wait for your footnotes, but in the meantime, have a good time, wherever you are!

Cheers!

[Picasso]

It's sort of like the "Should I hit 10,6 v. 10 in a 6 deck shoe off the top? What about 10,2,2,2, or 10,5,A?"

Or "I play 10 hours a year and I have a $1000 bankroll. Should I switch to Hi-Opt II?"

10-6=hit, 10-2-2-2=hit, 10-5-A=stand, all multi or single deck

Seven card Charlie is worth about .01%+

[NotEnoughHeat]

10-6=hit, 10-2-2-2=hit, 10-5-A=stand, all multi or single deck

If you were the only player at the table, then the RCs in hi-lo for the three situations would be -1, +1 and -2 respectively. I don't understand why 10-2-2-2 is a hit while 10-5-A is a stand since the former has a higher count than the latter. Isn't it the case that the higher the count the higher the value of standing should be? Could someone explain why it's the case that one would hit 10-2-2-2 v 10 off the top but stand 10-5-A?

[Dieter]

Could someone explain why it's the case that one would hit 10-2-2-2 v 10 off the top but stand 10-5-A?

Composition dependent strategy.

You're less likely to draw a 5 if you've already got one in your hand.

[Three]

Composition dependent analyzer has T,5,AvT a stand in 6 deck and single deck heads up, off the top of a fresh shoe but
t,2,2,2vT is a hit in both..

Isn't it the case that the higher the count the higher the value of standing should be? Could someone explain why it's the case that one would hit 10-2-2-2 v 10 off the top but stand 10-5-A?

This is true on average for counts. But not all counts are equal and more relevant to this discussion not all cards with the same tag value are equal. The playing Effect of removals (EOR's) for the cards for 16vT are:
2: -0.2903
3: -0.8042
4: -1.7532
5: -2.5683
6: -2.2287
7: -0.7109
8: -0.0567
9: +0.5524
T: +1.1151
A: -0.4992

So a TC may have heavy effect cards removed lik 5 and 6 or cards removed that are counted as a high but act as a low like the A. Also a bunch of weak low cards like the two. Your count assumes the average EOR of each count tag for each card removed but the actual effect of removal depends on what cards were removed.

[Picasso]

Found this on the internet, first column is for single deck, the other one is for multiple deck

[Norm]

There is no reference for this data. No reason to believe it.