sacrifice splitting

[chucky baby]

Stanford Wong states that full implementation of sacrifice splitting increases player's basic advantage by 0.25%.
Is he right?
Opinions, please.

Chucky Baby

[ZenMaster_Flash]

At first blush, this sounds wrong.
Please elucidate.

[BlackJackAgain]

You mean rider strategy, right ?

Stanford Wong states that full implementation of sacrifice splitting increases player's basic advantage by 0.25%.
Is he right?
Opinions, please.

Chucky Baby

[Dog Hand]

Stanford Wong states that full implementation of sacrifice splitting increases player's basic advantage by 0.25%.
Is he right?
Opinions, please.

Chucky Baby

Chucky Baby,

I analyzed the optimal rider strategy and found that, at best, the increase in expectation is less than 0.174%: this result is for an 8D H17 NoDAS game where the back bettor (BB) to front bettor (FB) betting ratio R = BB/FB is 100.

Oddly enough, the maximum gain possible DECREASES with better rules: DAS, S17, and fewer decks all produce smaller gains.

For more information, including the optimal strategy as a function of the house rules and R ratio, see my Green Chip post "Splitting Hairs on Hairy Splits" at

https://bj21.com/boards/green-chip-f...?page=1#unread

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

[BlackJackAgain]

Interesting, I always remembered it was ballpark 0.2%, didn't know it was under that.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

The paperwork that I have shows a 0.20% value.

I believe that there is a crucialratio re: the difference between the rider's bet and the player's bet to maximize gain to the 0.20% that I believe it attains. How does 7:1 sound to you?

SEE BELOWTTACH] [/ATTACH]

[ZeeBabar]

The paperwork that I have shows a 0.20% value.

I believe that there is a crucialratio re: the difference between the rider's bet and the player's bet to maximize gain to the 0.20% that I believe it attains. How does 7:1 sound to you?

SEE BELOWTTACH] [/ATTACH]

A related question, in a DD game where doubling is permitted on 9-11 even after splitting (no soft doubling course if its A,8, you can), are there splits one does not make?

[Freightman]

A related question, in a DD game where doubling is permitted on 9-11 even after splitting (no soft doubling course if its A,8, you can), are there splits one does not make?

Nope

[ZeeBabar]

Thanks

[Dog Hand]

The paperwork that I have shows a 0.20% value.

I believe that there is a crucialratio re: the difference between the rider's bet and the player's bet to maximize gain to the 0.20% that I believe it attains. How does 7:1 sound to you?

SEE BELOWTTACH] [/ATTACH]

ZenMaster_Flash

,

The picture you posted differs quite a bit from the strategy I calculated, particularly on the ratio of back bet to front bet

required

to perform some of the Unequal Splits (or Conditional Defensive Splits, as your picture names them).

For example, for 6,6 vs. X I calculated the critical ratio R* to be 12.3 (for an 8D, S17, DAS game), so if the BB is 12.3 times the FB or MORE, the team should perform an Unequal Split. On your picture the ratio is inverted and shows the MAXIMUM percentage of FB to BB. Using my 12.3 BB/FB ratio gives a percentage of 100%/12.3 = 8.13%, so my strategy calls for US if the FB is 8.13% of the BB or LESS. However, the percentage shown for this play on your picture is 3%: a significant difference from 8.13%.

By the way, from where did this picture come?

As to the "best" BB/FB ratio, the gain in advantage is a monotonically increasing function of the ratio: the higher the ratio, the higher the gain. However, the gain does asymptotically approach a constant value, so even a ratio of, say, 1000 will not produce a gain much larger than that I showed for a ratio of 100.

Dog Hand

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Dog Hand,

I wish that I could identify the source of my attachment.

[chucky baby]

player	piggybacker bet	boxholder
hand	dealer 2	dealer 2
99	-4.5	split
88	-1.5	split
77	2.5	split
66	no split	split
33	3.0	split
22	2.5	split
	dealer 3	dealer 3
99	split	split
88	-2.5	split
77	0.5	split
66	2.5	split
33	1.0	split
22	0.5	split
	dealer 4	dealer 4
99	split	split
88	-3.5	split
77	-0.5	split
66	0.5	split
33	-0.5	split
22	-1.0	split
	dealer 5	dealer 5
99	split	split
88	-4.0	split
77	-1.5	split
66	-1.0	split
33	-1.5	split
22	-2.5	split
	dealer 6	dealer 6
99	split	split
88	split	split
77	-3.5	split
66	-2.0	split
33	-3.5	split
22	-4.5	split
	dealer 7	dealer 7
99	no split	no split
88	split	split
77	3.0	split
66	no split	sacr split
33	no split	split
22	-2.5	split
	dealer 8	dealer 8
99	split	split
88	2.0	split
77	no split	sacr split
66	no split	sacr split
33	no split	sacr split
22	no split	sacr split
	dealer 9	dealer 9
99	no split	split
88	no split	split
77	no split	sacr split
66	no split	sacr split (1)		(1) boxholder sacr split only if piggy-back to boxholder ratio >2
33	no split	sacr split
22	no split	sacr split (1)		(1) boxholder sacr split only if piggy-back to boxholder ratio >2
	dealer 10	dealer 10
AA	0.0	split
99	no split	sacr split (2)		(2) boxholder sacr split only if piggy-back to boxholder ratio >5
88	no split	sacr split
77	no split	sacr split
66	no split	sacr split (2)		(2) boxholder sacr split only if piggy-back to boxholder ratio >5
33	no split	sacr split (2)		(2) boxholder sacr split only if piggy-back to boxholder ratio >5
22	no split	sacr split (2)		(2) boxholder sacr split only if piggy-back to boxholder ratio >5
	dealer ace	dealer ace
AA	no split	no split
99	no split	no split
88	no split	sacr split
77	no split	sacr split
66	no split	sacr split
33	no split	sacr split
22	no split	sacr split

msg to DogHand...is the above correct? Note: indices are for half-decks and "no hole card, lose all to dealer bj".

Thanks....Chucky baby

[Dog Hand]

Chunky baby,

I cannot say whether or not your indices are correct, as my work on rider strategy is to find the correct B.S. only: it does not involve card counting. Furthermore, I did not consider ENHC rules.

Dog Hand