REKO-F Double Deck H17 DAS Question for one silly index

[Norm]

The basic strategy in Casino Verite Blackjack for double deck games are kind of weird

CV does not include DD strategies for most systems, including BS, as most books don't.

This has to be one of very few, if not the only one!!

Generally, index decisions can be charted as two lines that intersect at one point. Defensive splits can intersect at two points. Most of the time, one point doesn't occur enough to matter. However, with unbalanced counts, this doubling back is more likely to matter because of the fact the average count varies by current penetration. It's rare that it makes any difference and I've never seen this mentioned in any book.

[Paul21]

CV does not include DD strategies for most systems, including BS, as most books don't.



Generally, index decisions can be charted as two lines that intersect at one point. Defensive splits can intersect at two points. Most of the time, one point doesn't occur enough to matter. However, with unbalanced counts, this doubling back is more likely to matter because of the fact the average count varies by current penetration. It's rare that it makes any difference and I've never seen this mentioned in any book.

Got it Norm, that makes perfect sense. About a year ago in this game I either split 6,6 versus 7, or I split 7,7 vs 8...I forget which....and the close watching pit thought it was an absolutely boneheaded move. Pit critter shook his head, laughed and walked away. That made me smile; I love it when they laugh at me. However, I won't split 6,6 vs 7 now!
Thanks Much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Three]

Anytime you split, you eliminate your chance at a 3.2 payoff and reduce pen.

If you split you had a 0$ chance of a 3:2 payoff before the split.

As for reducing pen what you meant was eating cards and maybe rounds. Sometimes that is a good thing and sometimes it isn't.

[Paul21]

Being able to do moves they think are stupid when your count says they are not really helps keep your play from being evaluated without costing you any EV. The trouble is you don't always know what they think is stupid or very clever. Sometimes their thought process is really bad. Of course you can gauge reactions to have some kind of idea when dealing with individuals. Still, you can't be sure. The trick is to have your knowledge differ from theirs. Since you never know what their knowledge is you can only make assumptions. One good assumption is if you are using a different approach than most that differs enough with its assessment you will have such plays in your arsenal if you choose to use them. The average over the long run won't differ by much but the betting moves and playing decisions used to get to the long run may differ a lot if the approach differs by enough. This has nothing to do with complicated or simple but obviously the difference between the 2 can be significant but in some cases they are not (see Norm's thread on the differences between bet variations in level 1 and level 2 counts). Using a RC approach versus a TC approach is obviously different. Using side counts for playing decisions will cause a small family of differences. Getting more creative than most with side counting can have a wider application. Most just worry about the EV difference but the difference in how you bet and play can be worth more as compared to the gain in EV if the differences are enough.

I agree, good advice. You're right that you can never be certain how the pit is "really" thinking on such plays.

With that in mind, other than all of the well documented cover betting and/or plays that we occasionally make at times to get away with a decent spread, in the deeply dealt 2 deck games there's one specific move that I always try to make early in every session that is not found much in print. The first time the count rises "dramatically" in the first or second round, (i.e. a moron could see it), I do not raise my bet on the next round regardless of what happened on my last bet(s), in fact I will sometimes lower my bet on the next round if I just lost my bet, especially if a know a pit person is watching. I wait two rounds afterward before increasing my bet (if it's still justified).
If it's clear nothing but low cards have come it, the pit is easily noticing this, whether they have someone cumulatively counting or not. This move costs very little and in my experience is extremely effective at putting the pit at ease for awhile, especially if they are watching me for the first time. If I play for more than 60 minutes I will usually repeat the 2 round delay-play one more time. Twice max.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul21]

Suppose you start your hand with $25. Now, you split so $50 is invested in two hands with no chance of a 3.2 payoff. Even worse proposition in no DAS game. The eaten cards constitute a shuffle at the end of the deck which often negates a large bet opportunity on the last hand in a pitch game.

I think you're losing us Moses...you seem to be advocating intentionally misplayed hands. Doing so will decrease EV every time, there is no way around that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk