Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 26

Thread: 12 v 4 regarding side counting in the earlier rounds

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    12 v 4 regarding side counting in the earlier rounds

    Let's assume I'm playing a DD with 2 other players. My system of choice is hi-opt1 (side count aces only). I'm on my 2nd round.

    A habit I have in the earlier rounds is to make a mental note of how many (7s to 9s) are exposed. I don't side count these, but it doesn't require much brain power to take notice on round 2.

    Roughly 19 cards are exposed (roughly 5/6 deck remaining)
    1st round: 11.8 cards dealt (~2.7 * 4)
    2nd round: 7 cards exposed

    I have a bunch of hands in mind. I'll throw just one for now since there are a lot of questions I don't have a clue how to approach.

    Hand 1: 12 v 4
    RC: 3
    TC: 2 1/2 (I'd probably truncate to 2 at game speed)

    The index play is somewhere slightly above 0 if I recall correctly.

    Q1: What are the effects of middle card? My hunch says
    7s help the dealer a lot and helps the player,
    8s harm the dealer and helps the player a lot,
    9s harm the dealer and helps the player a lot.

    Q2: What are the estimated EORs? How does that translate to adjusting index plays for surplus and shortages?

    Q3: What should be done if no 7s, 8s, or 9s are dealt? According to one chart i found, a surplus of one 7 means TC should be reduced by 1. There is already a surplus of 1.5 (I'd probably truncate to 1 at game speed) 7s. Now how do I factor in the other surplus of 8s, and 9s?

    Q4: If I also notice no 5s or 6s (a bunch of 3s and 4s instead) are dealt, how do I incorporate those into my beginning round strategy? I'm assuming they are just as helpful and should be adjusted into the play decision even though they already have a +1 index attached by default in hi-opt1.

    Q5: What are some other key hands to pay attention to. 16 vs. 10 seems important since it's the most frequent. Hands involving 2s,3s,4s (splitting or not splitting in NDAS games perhaps) seems interesting too since I'd imagine EOR factors mattering a lot.

    Thanks!

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by FishBear View Post
    Let's assume I'm playing a DD with 2 other players. My system of choice is hi-opt1 (side count aces only). I'm on my 2nd round.

    A habit I have in the earlier rounds is to make a mental note of how many (7s to 9s) are exposed. I don't side count these, but it doesn't require much brain power to take notice on round 2.

    Roughly 19 cards are exposed (roughly 5/6 deck remaining)
    1st round: 11.8 cards dealt (~2.7 * 4)
    2nd round: 7 cards exposed

    I have a bunch of hands in mind. I'll throw just one for now since there are a lot of questions I don't have a clue how to approach.

    Hand 1: 12 v 4
    RC: 3
    TC: 2 1/2 (I'd probably truncate to 2 at game speed)

    The index play is somewhere slightly above 0 if I recall correctly.

    Q1: What are the effects of middle card? My hunch says
    7s help the dealer a lot and helps the player,
    8s harm the dealer and helps the player a lot,
    9s harm the dealer and helps the player a lot.

    Q2: What are the estimated EORs? How does that translate to adjusting index plays for surplus and shortages?

    Q3: What should be done if no 7s, 8s, or 9s are dealt? According to one chart i found, a surplus of one 7 means TC should be reduced by 1. There is already a surplus of 1.5 (I'd probably truncate to 1 at game speed) 7s. Now how do I factor in the other surplus of 8s, and 9s?

    Q4: If I also notice no 5s or 6s (a bunch of 3s and 4s instead) are dealt, how do I incorporate those into my beginning round strategy? I'm assuming they are just as helpful and should be adjusted into the play decision even though they already have a +1 index attached by default in hi-opt1.

    Q5: What are some other key hands to pay attention to. 16 vs. 10 seems important since it's the most frequent. Hands involving 2s,3s,4s (splitting or not splitting in NDAS games perhaps) seems interesting too since I'd imagine EOR factors mattering a lot.

    Thanks!
    your hunches are going to be correct, You can find the answers in Theory of Blackjack ($7 shipped on amazon) Pages 74-85. "Virtually Complete Strategy Tables". This style of play your talking about is going to be more advantage based upon key card thinking like you described than any linear count system for playing decisions so keep up the good work.

    Page 30 shows avg gains for varying playing decision from basic strategy for 12v4 is quite high around 30 thousandth of a percent which makes this worthwhile as a strategy deviation. Removal of each 7,8,and 9 makes drawing on the 12 versus 4 anywhere from 1 to 1.5% less favorable. per card removed. For example 3 depleted 7 and 1 depleted 8 would be (-1.53%*3)+(1*-1.42%)= -6% versus standing for a full deck.

    its -1.53%/7 removed, -1.13%/8 and -1.42%/9 and its +2.50%/ten removed.

    A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
    -.44 -.23 -1.28, -1.21 -1.31 -1.45 -1.53 -1.13 -1.42 2.50

    for the 16v10 the key cards are going to be 4 (-1.73) ,5(-2.57), and 6(1.65) as you would imagine, get the book it has the information you seek.
    Last edited by hypercube; 08-20-2017 at 05:46 AM.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "1st round: 11.8 cards dealt (~2.7 * 4)"

    10.8, but who's counting? :-)

    Don

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "Roughly 19 cards are exposed (roughly 5/6 deck remaining)"

    NO! Roughly 5/6 (actually 81.7%) of TWO decks remaining! You're calculating the TC incorrectly.

    "1st round: 11.8 cards dealt (~2.7 * 4)
    2nd round: 7 cards exposed

    Hand 1: 12 v 4
    RC: 3
    TC: 2 1/2 (I'd probably truncate to 2 at game speed)"

    This is wrong! here are 104 cards in two decks. You seen 19, so 85 remain. If you calculate TC by dividing by the number of WHOLE DECKS remaining, which is the case for Hi-Opt I, then you should be dividing by 85/52 = 1.63. 3/1.63 = 1.84, which is the correct TC, not 2.5.

    Don

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "Page 30 shows avg gains for varying playing decision from basic strategy for 12v4 is quite high around 30 thousandth of a percent which makes this worthwhile as a strategy deviation."

    Not really. The play ranks low in the I18, because you deviate (hit) only when the count is LESS than zero, so you always have a minimum bet out at the time.

    "Removal of each 7,8,and 9 makes drawing on the 12 versus 4 anywhere from 1 to 1.5% less favorable. per card removed. For example 3 depleted 7 and 1 depleted 8 would be (-1.53%*3)+(1*-1.42%)= -6% versus standing for a full deck."

    But you haven't accounted for the fact that this is DD, not SD, and so all the values you stated are, roughly, halved.

    Don

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Don S. If 30 thousandth of a percent are worthwhile strategy deviations, then where is the line drawn at not worthwhile? Are 13vs4. 14vs2. 14vs10 close?
    The better question is - when do you ignore strategy deviations? This is not s Zeeish type discussion. Think I'll wait for some feedback thoughts before I throw in my $.02.

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    "Page 30 shows avg gains for varying playing decision from basic strategy for 12v4 is quite high around 30 thousandth of a percent which makes this worthwhile as a strategy deviation."

    Not really. The play ranks low in the I18, because you deviate (hit) only when the count is LESS than zero, so you always have a minimum bet out at the time.

    "Removal of each 7,8,and 9 makes drawing on the 12 versus 4 anywhere from 1 to 1.5% less favorable. per card removed. For example 3 depleted 7 and 1 depleted 8 would be (-1.53%*3)+(1*-1.42%)= -6% versus standing for a full deck."

    But you haven't accounted for the fact that this is DD, not SD, and so all the values you stated are, roughly, halved.

    Don
    yes i was referring to one deck "versus standing for a full deck" agree surplus or deficit per decks remaining.
    Last edited by hypercube; 08-20-2017 at 10:20 AM.

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    "Page 30 shows avg gains for varying playing decision from basic strategy for 12v4 is quite high around 30 thousandth of a percent which makes this worthwhile as a strategy deviation."

    Not really. The play ranks low in the I18, because you deviate (hit) only when the count is LESS than zero, so you always have a minimum bet out at the time.

    "Removal of each 7,8,and 9 makes drawing on the 12 versus 4 anywhere from 1 to 1.5% less favorable. per card removed. For example 3 depleted 7 and 1 depleted 8 would be (-1.53%*3)+(1*-1.42%)= -6% versus standing for a full deck."

    But you haven't accounted for the fact that this is DD, not SD, and so all the values you stated are, roughly, halved.

    Don
    Not really because I start off the top with 2x2units and 12v4 is in play at a count of 0, so if you peak you neighbor and he has a face card its a basic strategy hit off the top. I also use around 50 indices and play all DD, worthwhile or not depends on the person, it is very worthwhile IMO. The differences is several hundred dollars a year, and if the count drops i might still not have min bet out if there are undealt surplus aces.
    Last edited by hypercube; 08-20-2017 at 10:08 AM.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Don S. If 30 thousandth of a percent are worthwhile strategy deviations, then where is the line drawn at not worthwhile? Are 13vs4. 14vs2. 14vs10 close?
    What do you think the I18 attempted to do? But you can't use Griffin's numbers, and I explain why in the intro to the chapter, pp. 56-58.

    Don

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by hypercube View Post
    Not really because I start off the top with 2x2units and 12v4 is in play at a count of 0, so if you peak [peek at] you neighbor and he has a face card its a basic strategy hit off the top. I also use around 50 indices and play all DD, worthwhile or not depends on the person, it is very worthwhile IMO. The differences is several hundred dollars a year, and if the count drops i might still not have min bet out if there are undealt surplus aces.
    You start a negative-e.v. game with a four-unit bet? Not such a great idea.

    What is the RC when you hold 12 and the dealer shows 4? It's always +1 or +2, no? So, seeing your neighbor's face card (singular) doesn't automatically make the play a hit. It's a BS hit off the top in DD for T,2, but not for the other ways to get 12.

    Don

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by hypercube View Post
    your hunches are going to be correct, You can find the answers in Theory of Blackjack ($7 shipped on amazon) Pages 74-85. "Virtually Complete Strategy Tables". This style of play your talking about is going to be more advantage based upon key card thinking like you described than any linear count system for playing decisions so keep up the good work.

    Page 30 shows avg gains for varying playing decision from basic strategy for 12v4 is quite high around 30 thousandth of a percent which makes this worthwhile as a strategy deviation. Removal of each 7,8,and 9 makes drawing on the 12 versus 4 anywhere from 1 to 1.5% less favorable. per card removed. For example 3 depleted 7 and 1 depleted 8 would be (-1.53%*3)+(1*-1.42%)= -6% versus standing for a full deck.

    its -1.53%/7 removed, -1.13%/8 and -1.42%/9 and its +2.50%/ten removed.

    A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T
    -.44 -.23 -1.28, -1.21 -1.31 -1.45 -1.53 -1.13 -1.42 2.50

    for the 16v10 the key cards are going to be 4 (-1.73) ,5(-2.57), and 6(1.65) as you would imagine, get the book it has the information you seek.
    Thanks, I have an ebook of this book somewhere. Never really looked into this before since I preferred to just memorize charts and play! Also the maff somewhat scared me since I'm not as literate on that subject!

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    "Roughly 19 cards are exposed (roughly 5/6 deck remaining)"

    NO! Roughly 5/6 (actually 81.7%) of TWO decks remaining! You're calculating the TC incorrectly.

    "1st round: 11.8 cards dealt (~2.7 * 4)
    2nd round: 7 cards exposed

    Hand 1: 12 v 4
    RC: 3
    TC: 2 1/2 (I'd probably truncate to 2 at game speed)"

    This is wrong! here are 104 cards in two decks. You seen 19, so 85 remain. If you calculate TC by dividing by the number of WHOLE DECKS remaining, which is the case for Hi-Opt I, then you should be dividing by 85/52 = 1.63. 3/1.63 = 1.84, which is the correct TC, not 2.5.

    Don
    Thanks Don! and oops...
    I hope I don't make this many incorrect estimates this frequently.

    I did 3 * 5/6, which is waaaay off.

    In the example above, there are 2 decks (12/6 if you think in fractional terms).
    Roughly 18 cards are exposed. 18/104 means roughly 2/6th of the shoe is depleted.

    That means the shoe factor now is 10/6.
    The correct method to get the TC is to divide 3 by (10/6).

    3*6/10 is 1.8.

    I made two major maff mistakes in my example:

    1) not factoring in 2 decks, and
    2) switching the numerator with the denominator.

    As an example,
    with 3/4th of the shoe remaining, TC at
    RC 1 is 1 *4/3 == 4/3
    RC 2 is 2 * 4/3 == 2 and 2/3
    RC 3 is 3 * 4/3 == 4
    etc

    I'll make sure to do more mental exercises, so that this becomes more intuitive. I'm also trying to think of possible mistakes I can make at game speed, so I can make sure that they never occur. Thinking about it, it is possible I make a ton of mistakes (as shown here) without ever realizing it.

    Also yeah, 2.7*4 is 10.8. That's 0/2 for me!
    Last edited by FishBear; 08-20-2017 at 02:19 PM.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Wow! This much discussion on this hand....how in the world am I winning without all these calculations!!!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Side Counting 7's
    By refinery in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-17-2017, 09:10 AM
  2. Red Seven: Side Counting Aces
    By BlackjackFeign in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2016, 02:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.