Is there any EV gain from doubling down on A,7 and A,6 vs 2 in a Six deck S17, DAS game? Would those two plays decrease SCORE due to increase variances by doubling? Imagine you have your maxed bet out and you split 7,7 and 6,6 vs 2 to three hands, you received three aces and doubled on all three hands. I want to see is it worth making that deviation from Basic Strategy.
As long as index is met, it is plus EV to double A7 & A6 v 2. Splitting 77 or 66 v 2 with max bets is the play. Snagging 3 aces with a max bet out is a very good reason to be well financed at the table. By inference, the count us more than good enough to double all 3 hands. Unless there is information to the contrary, your course if action is clear.Originally Posted by seriousplayer
A,6vs2 and A,7vs2 are both hands in which the TC is not an accurate means of determining whether to double or not. Any doubling index you apply is going to be highly volatile. You can have TC+10 with a max bet out there with the appropriate decision to hit A,6vs2 and stand on A,7vs2. You can have an extremely negative count in which doubling is the proper play, a little less sweat since you have a minimum bet out there. These hands are out there in bizarro world and I think of them in a completely different way other than in terms of TC.
You might say, "That sounds crazy. How can the you have TC+10 and not double? How is it possible to have huge variance using my index?" Think of this in terms of deck composition. (2-4) removed is not doing you any favors toward doubling A,6vs2, (8,9) removed are. Remove {2-5} in an even distribution all the way out to TC+10 with no {6-9} removed and the decision is to hit (by a lot!). {6-9} removed are much more important than {2-5} removed for this hand to double it. If you remove enough {6-9}, it's possible to have more {T} removed than {2-5}, a negative count and the clear decision is to double! If you don't have middle cards removed in addition to low cards removed, you are not in the zone to double, basically. Middle cards in surplus or deficit have a major impact on these hands.
With all due respect, do you understand that your answer is of no help to the OP? He doesn't play the way you do, so he can't do what you suggest. You have to try to answer the question in the context of what he can do as a player.
So my answer is: Any extra gain in e.v. attained by reaching the index has to be tempered by the extra risk. For A,6 vs. 2, you would probably never double. For A,7 vs. 2, there are different r-a indices depending on the size of the wager relative to the bankroll. The larger the bet, the higher the index.
These two graphs should help understand how the edge goes up with the TC.
https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm
https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm
Don
Kudos to the Jungle Dude - even if the information, (especially valuable to proponents of his Tarzan Protocols), serves as a "heads up" for most players as to an additional reason to understand Risk Aversion.
Of course, for those whose bankroll and bet-sizing forecast a high Risk of Ruin this is a fine opportunity to deploy some good Risk Averse strategies.
Of course I realize that, Don. I am not suggesting he do anything one way or the other, nor expecting him to be able to alter his method based on that brief description, and only showing how using the TC as the only basis of doubling these hands makes them highly volatile.
"If those two indices will increase risk than [then] do you still suggest I use the two indices regardless of EV?"
NO! That's the whole concept behind risk-averse indices. All double downs increase risk. That is a given. If you double your bet for virtually no increase in e.v., and you have a limited bankroll, usually, the double at the index is not a good idea.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks