On another forum where I am banned, Don S says there is no difference when splitting 7,7 against an 8 at TC +3 and up to TC +7, to go ahead and split. I think it was a DD, H17, DAD game.
Maybe I did not read it right or maybe I was playing it wrong. In any case, my question is how and when to split 7's against an 8 in a DD game, a 6 deck game.
Of course you refrain from entertaining the self-defeating
notion of splitting 7's vs. (any card) in a game that is NDAS
With DAS the Hi-Opt II profit-maximizing index for the split
of 7-7 vs. 8 is +5. I use +6 as a Risk Averse index for this.
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 06-07-2018 at 08:47 AM.
2 decks
ScreenShot072.png
8 decks
ScreenShot071.png
ZeeBabar, if you pick apart 7,7vs8 with a microscope, you can demonstrate an index to hit, to split, to surrender, involving a complexity beyond what you might want to attempt to take on, particularly given the minimal gains of doing so. You picked a hand that in addition to the infrequency of the hand, the EV between hitting and splitting can be as little as .000011, and in a reasonably large patch of all possible decisions it is a similarly tiny fraction. I could show you the chart, the exact key card values, the exact indices for all possible decisions, but this hand probably shouldn't be all that high on your list of priorities. This hand is a shining example, possibly the most extreme example, of what DonS has pointed out on "pain vs. gain". An elaborate, complex count, even something that allows for perfect or near perfect play on this hand affords little actual gain. I might have demonstrated how I look at this hand in the card counting plus forum, it was either this one or 4,4vs6, I could go hog wild and break it down for you, but I question if that's beneficial to you one way or the other, since it's beyond what you might want to bother with for such an inconsequential hand.
If I were to explain this hand in some simplistic enough way that you could work into your play using Hi-Lo or whatever count you use, I would tell you to pay attention to the key cards (4), (6), and (7). Think of (4) as pushing you in the direction to split, and (6,7) pushing you in the direction to hit. You are playing a DD game, there is 1 deck remaining and:
- No (4) have been removed from the deck/numerous (6,7) have been removed from the deck, more than eight, SPLIT
- Lots of (4) have been removed from the deck, more than four/ limited or minimal (6,7) have been removed from the deck, HIT
I have a chart for this hand that points out exact departure points based on an even distribution within card groupings. There's even a surrender index for this hand if you want to go truly hardcore. An uneven distribution within these grouping, specifically surplus or deficit of (4,6,7) beyond the mean have an impact, as their values are considerably more than the {T}, and potentially move the line of demarcation for the index from where it sits in an even distribution of the grouping the key cards are located in. You can think of the (4) as having three times the impact of the {T}, you can think of the (6) and (7) as having twice the impact of the {T}.
Last edited by Tarzan; 06-07-2018 at 02:02 PM.
First, the H17 is irrelevant. Next, Wong's multi-deck index of split above +5 isn't all that different from Norm's +4, above (albeit for 8 decks). Finally, the 19 is a reverse index, meaning that you split below 19 but not above (as if anyone actually cares!). The implication is that, above +19, with such a huge saturation of tens left, splitting is going to lead to two 17s vs. the dealer's 18 too often for comfort.Originally Posted by CountinCanadian
Don
Haha thanks for the clarification, I guess the 19 threw me off because I didn't think it would include a number so high.. making me think that it was a franctional reverse index, but one that didn't make sense.. dumb moment by me.. thanks
I never split them against an 8, just because the ev is very slightly better above TC2 or whatever doesnt mean you should do it. It's a hand where the slight advantage of ev does not increase with the count meaningfully.
Consider in high count with hi opt 2 you are likely already in a deficit 4 situation, since 4 and 5 are counted as 2, and 23, 67 are 1. The deficit 4 helps the 8 and hurts the two 7s.
furthur in surplus 67 situation, it slightly favors the 7 over the 8. Surplus 10 and A favors the 8 over the 7. Surplus 23 situation slightly favors the 8 over the 7. And if you do have a side count of 7, and they are in surplus, you would be better off to hit and take your 21, if you split them, now you might catch another 7 and your strategy says split them again. and now put yourself in a spot with 3 hands of a max bet against an 8 risking that days profits on a hand you do t even know if you have the edge as i deacribed above, chasing such a small theorevtical ev. Id rather not.
Without that knowledge hiopt 2 counters should not split them because the slight increase in variance to your game doesn't really add enough ev to support it.
Also why burn up good cards in a high count where there is such a minor "theoretical" ev advantage against a 8, but that ev advantage that may be just as likely to be -ev without you knowing it, since most people's count system (except Tarzan) are misleading on this match up to begin with.
Just IMO. reconsider splitting 7sv8 even in large positive counts as most charts recommend.
Last edited by hypercube; 06-07-2018 at 02:34 PM.
Thanks. Given how conservative I am, a higher than minimum bet out, I generally stand and given what every says, I will continue to do so. Say a TC+2 situation, $100 bet out, I do t want to risk Nother $100 and split 7's.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks