Need help with splitting strategy in a 2-deck game

[Bigdaddy]

Need help with basic strategy and index play for the the following hands. Assume a 2-deck game, H17, DAS.

6-6 vs. 7 - Wizard of Odds (basic strategy) says split. Wong's multi-deck strategy chart says always hit and doesn't provide any index number where a split would be recommended.

7-7 vs. 8 - Wizard of Odds (basic strategy) says split. Wong's multi-deck strategy chart says only split at TC of +5 or higher.

Why do Wong and the Wizard disagree on these hands? I realize that Wong's charts assume 4 decks or more, but the difference is still surprising to me.

Any help would be appreciated. I play mostly 2-deck games.

[Stealth]

Need help with basic strategy and index play for the the following hands. Assume a 2-deck game, H17, DAS.

6-6 vs. 7 - Wizard of Odds (basic strategy) says split. Wong's multi-deck strategy chart says always hit and doesn't provide any index number where a split would be recommended.

7-7 vs. 8 - Wizard of Odds (basic strategy) says split. Wong's multi-deck strategy chart says only split at TC of +5 or higher.

Why do Wong and the Wizard disagree on these hands? I realize that Wong's charts assume 4 decks or more, but the difference is still surprising to me.

Any help would be appreciated. I play mostly 2-deck games.

Without looking it up, wong probably is for 4 deck-8deck

Basic strategy for the dd game you identified is

6-6 vs 7 is "split 2-7, OW hit"
7-7 vs 8 is "split 2-8, OW hit"

Don Schlesinger's "Black Jack Attack" has all the variants and you can trust them.

[seriousplayer]

Need help with basic strategy and index play for the the following hands. Assume a 2-deck game, H17, DAS.

6-6 vs. 7 - Wizard of Odds (basic strategy) says split. Wong's multi-deck strategy chart says always hit and doesn't provide any index number where a split would be recommended.

7-7 vs. 8 - Wizard of Odds (basic strategy) says split. Wong's multi-deck strategy chart says only split at TC of +5 or higher.

Why do Wong and the Wizard disagree on these hands? I realize that Wong's charts assume 4 decks or more, but the difference is still surprising to me.

Any help would be appreciated. I play mostly 2-deck games.

For double deck double after split allowed and H17. Split 6-6 vs 7 DON'T split when double after split is not allowed. Split 7-7 vs 8 if double after split is allowed DON'T split when double after split is not allowed.

[DSchles]

These splits in DD are extremely close plays. They are correct for DD (barely) but not correct for a greater number of decks. For Wong's charts, "multi-deck" means four or more decks.

Don

[Jabberwocky]

Those split hands have greater application in DD Spanish 21.

[Bigdaddy]

These splits in DD are extremely close plays. They are correct for DD (barely) but not correct for a greater number of decks. For Wong's charts, "multi-deck" means four or more decks.

Don

Thanks Don - (the Don? - if so - I loved your book)

I guess my follow-up question is: at what index would you not split these hands in a DD game? Or alternatively, is there any fully-indexed strategy chart out there for a DD game? I'm concerned that I'm not making the correct index plays in the DD game by using the multi-deck index chart.

[ZeeBabar]

If you use the DD chart instead of the multi deck chart for that decision, if you get the same split opportunity then you might win one more hand in a 1000 such hands. It might mean that you might win one hand in a year of playing. There is no need to fret about it or run and try to memorize more indices because at some point you will get confused...course unless you are among the geniuses it memorization.

[Bigdaddy]

If you use the DD chart instead of the multi deck chart for that decision, if you get the same split opportunity then you might win one more hand in a 1000 such hands. It might mean that you might win one hand in a year of playing. There is no need to fret about it or run and try to memorize more indices because at some point you will get confused...course unless you are among the geniuses it memorization.

Thanks to all replies - I appreciate the feedback and I agree that this is a hairline EV play.

But I still don't understand why the Wong 4-deck strategy says split 7-7 vs. 8 only at TC of +5 or higher, and basic 2-deck strategy says split at TC of 0. Is there that much of a difference between a 2-deck and a 4-deck game?

[Aslan]

Thanks to all replies - I appreciate the feedback and I agree that this is a hairline EV play.

But I still don't understand why the Wong 4-deck strategy says split 7-7 vs. 8 only at TC of +5 or higher, and basic 2-deck strategy says split at TC of 0. Is there that much of a difference between a 2-deck and a 4-deck game?

Because in multi deck the BS is not to split. But since Wong is counting and he has given the count (+5) where it is favorable to split. The only part of his recommendation that I understand is that the dealer has a greater chance of having a ten or ace hole card, and hitting 14 will likely bust at +5. Apparently simulations and other analyses show you have a better chance of saving one of your hands if you split, than hitting 14, even though you're likely to get at least one ten.

[DSchles]

No, this doesn't smell right. Maybe someone will generate the two indices. There's no way that they would be 5 apart.

Don

[Aslan]

No, this doesn't smell right. Maybe someone will generate the two indices. There's no way that they would be 5 apart.

Don

I agree with the smell test. I was only commenting if it was in fact what Wong wrote, which I assume was vetted.

[Aslan]

I found this quote in a Blackjackinfo thread:

https://www.blackjackinfo.com/knowle...st-a-dealer-8/

If you are using Hi-Lo and in a DAS game, you should split 77 vs 8 when TC>5, as mentioned in the book, Professional Blackjack.

[DSchles]

My RPC index for splitting 7,7 v. 8 is +3. I can tell everyone here with 100% certainty that a) Wong's index is wrong, and 2) It isn't remotely possible that the DD index for this play differs from the index for 6-deck by more than 1 or 2, at the most.

Maybe someone will take the trouble to run the two index generations (but I already know the answer!).

Don