Doubling down on A,7 and A,6 vs 2

[Freightman]

So, what do you suggest he DO? How do you answer his question?

Don

He was bringing another viewpoint to the equation for the benefit of all.

[DSchles]

"He was bringing another viewpoint to the equation for the benefit of all."

Thanks for the explanation. Now, again, tell me what the OP got out of it. Or, don't we care?

Don

[seriousplayer]

Yes. What did you get out of it Seriousplayer.?

What I got out of Tarzan's conversation is doubling A,6 and A,7 vs 2 based only on the true count involves exposure to losses. The accuracy for deviating from the two indices using the true count is unpredictable to a high degree. But if the accuracy is unpredictable using the true count as information than I don't know what is the solution.

[Freightman]

What I got out of Tarzan's conversation is doubling A,6 and A,7 vs 2 based only on the true count involves exposure to losses. The accuracy for deviating from the two indices using the true count is unpredictable to a high degree. But if the accuracy is unpredictable using the true count as information than I don't know what is the solution.

Then clearly, you got something out of Tarzan's post, thus answering Don's query.

[seriousplayer]

Then clearly, you got something out of Tarzan's post, thus answering Don's query.

Yes, but what does Tarzan suggest I do to fix the inaccuracy if I am using the true count as information to deviate from the two plays (A,6 and A,7)?

[Freightman]

Yes, but what does Tarzan suggest I do to fix the inaccuracy if I am using the true count as information to deviate from the two plays (A,6 and A,7)?

With absolutely no offence to you, nothing, since that is not his solution, nor does it seem that your development to this point precludes you from developing the skills necessary to utilize his methods. So, what this leaves, essentially, not as part of your original question, but what has morphed from the thread, much to Don's chagrin, is Don's suggestion of utilizing risk averse indexes.

Within that context, this means a combination of higher counts before doubling and, ironically, over a recent post of Don on the subject, doubling for less.

Not withstanding the above, Don's query has been answered of what the OP has gained from Tarzan's contribution to the thread.

[Meistro123]

So what is the bottom line here? Always hit A6 v 2 if you have over .5% of your bankroll risked on the hand or what? Are there any other soft doubles that aggressive bettors should refrain from making? And what is the impact of the H17 rule on our decision to double soft seventeen against a deuce?

[Freightman]

So what is the bottom line here? Always hit A6 v 2 if you have over .5% of your bankroll risked on the hand or what? Are there any other soft doubles that aggressive bettors should refrain from making? And what is the impact of the H17 rule on our decision to double soft seventeen against a deuce?

The bottom line is yours to decide. What Don also mentioned, which I agree with, is that decisions should be tempered by strength of bankroll. I don't like that ace 6 v 2 double, even at high counts. I do temper that double to the count, and other factors. I'm somewhat mire liberal with ace 7 v 2.

[Phoebe]

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.

CVData without RA Indexes
Soft Double Down - A7 vs. 2: DD >= 1
Soft Double Down - A6 vs. 2: DD >= 2

With RA Indexes (Max bet @6)
Soft Double Down - A7 vs. 2: DD >= 1
Soft Double Down - A6 vs. 2: DD >= 9

With RA Indexes (Max bet @3)
Soft Double Down - A7 vs. 2: No Double Down
Soft Double Down - A6 vs. 2: No Double Down


If it is "depending on the size of the wager relative to the bankroll" what is it in CVData ?
How is "Max Bet @" relevant ?

[DSchles]

As someone totally oblivious to a game that offers this rule in the first place, I do find it interesting. I like college football too but I'd never bet a game and the structure drives me coo coo.

So Don S. How viable is this question? I mean I'd assume these particular plays do not fall near your ill 18. But where would they fall?

"Important" risk-averse index plays are a function of three things: 1) how frequently the play arises; 2) the percentage of your bank that is wagered on the hand, and 3) the volatility of the play (i.e., how quickly the advantage changes as the TC rises). Since these plays fail the very first frequency tests, they will never be "important."

Don

[ZeeBabar]

Some of these answers to what appears to be a simple question. I was watching a weather forcast (when I read this thread) for tomorrow as I am driving to another city and the weatherman said there is only a 10% chance of rain. If some guys on this list were watching, they would have given me a lecture about the weather model the forecaster was using, about how a slight shift in the wind would result in a different forecast, that a different forecast would result on a 3% drop in humidity, the dryness in the air will mean frost on the road and on and on. I would not know whether to cancel the trip or what?

[DSchles]

Don. Is there a rule of thumb for item 1? I assume insurance, double down, and split options make up the majority or all these decisions. So first two card percentage would apply?

First two cards AND the dealer's upcard, in combination. Mostly all doubles and splits for r-a indices, and all of them together aren't worth as much as 10 vs. 10 double.

Don

[Three]

Thanks for the explanation. Now, again, tell me what the OP got out of it. Or, don't we care?

The OP now understands why this play and perhaps other plays are more volatile than the EV is worth. You can give a man a fish and he eats for a day. You teach him to fish and you have fed him forever or at least as long as the fish are biting. LoL

Often learning why things work or don't work is much more useful than knowing the right thing to do in one particular situation. I was raised to understand what is being said or asked rather than being literal about what was said or asked. If I was told the trash was getting full more than once I would get my ass whooped for not taking the trash out when I was asked. Now nobody specifically asked me to take out the trash but they did ask me to take out the trash without specifically saying it. I guess it is about assuming someone can understand what is needed to make things better in the future. Some figure saying yes or no teaches someone all he needs to know while others think the explanation of why teaches a lot more than the yes or no.

I got out of it that with this play my count gathers little to no relevant information on A6v2 so I should hit even though it is usually plus EV to double.
To answer the questions asked. (Don is slipping. He missed answering most of the questions asked and was critical of answers that came closer to answering them than he did.)

Is there any EV gain from doubling down on A,7 and A,6 vs 2 in a Six deck S17, DAS game?

Yes, but not much especially for A6v2.

Would those two plays decrease SCORE due to increase variances by doubling?

That depends on the index and count used.

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.

This gets into risk averse indices. A6v2 is definitely a candidate but the answer depends on the relationship of your BR to the bet you have out for the count you use. For Hilo you should probably forgo the double especially with big bets out. If you side count middle cards it may be a strong index play when the adjusted count calls for it. Without middle card info it is a weak index play at best.