Okay, I consulted with EnriqueVasquezFromEastNogales on this... and he said if you were to take an array of 330 different deck compositions and compare the Hi-Lo decision to T count decision for 9vs7, before any adjustments are make for key cards or imbalanced groupings, you would have 19 instances of hitting when Enrique the Hi-Lo player is doubling, you would have 8 instances of doubling when Enrique the Hi-Lo player is hitting. It's actually quite close. Picture what a Venn diagram for this would look like, about 2.5% sticking out on one side and about 5.8% on the other edge with most of it matching up. It's only these 27 specific types of deck compositions of the 330 that differ, so they are really not that far off from one another. One is considerably more trouble to go through for a slightly more defined index.
Is it me or does it seem like Hard Doubles are more affected by these "floating advantages?" For years now, ive noticed you can take the index for 11vsX pretty far past the index when theres a deck or less remaining..Bit with splits,stiffs,ins, and soft doubles you can only be about half as aggressive compared to when hard doubling..What about 12 vs 2 doesnt that index drop "closer to the cut" some what too?
http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi
A Costly Error. While I cannot cite the page in which it appears,
but I assure you that Peter Griffin (in TTofBJ) states that the player
must not do what you are describing, and indeed will have BETTER
results by sticking to Basic Strategy unless you are certain that before
a play is made that you have FULLY realized the index. In very simple
terms ... if your index for a double is +2 you must have met or exceeded
+2. Indeed, it is far better if you are approaching +3. Besides being costly
making such errors, (because you want to figuratively 'pat yourself on the
back' for being so clever) ~ feeding your ego is what I call this phenomena.
It is self-destructive and it is not risk averse and indeed increases your ugly
variance; something that WE do not want.
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 06-15-2018 at 07:09 PM.
Yes, there is such a thing as a difference for less than 2 decks, greater than 2 decks for 12vs2. What the index is at 1.5 decks remaining is going to be different than what it is with 4.5 decks remaining. Haven't you studied some of this in detail, Jack? I thought you had... You asked about this just to keep me on my toes?
Doubling prematurely reduces EV while increasing variance. If you don't understand why that is very bad you should not be playing at all. Look up SCORE. Lower EV lowers SCORE and higher variance lowers SCORE. Doing both at the same time lowers SCORE a lot.
There is also the issue of frequency. Assuming DD Hilio with 40 cards cut off, you will get a TC of +6 1.42% of the time. You will get a TC of +7 or more 2.46% of the time. You would be better off using an index of +9 than +6. TC +7 and +8 frequencies are .75% and .73% respectively. Each TC is loaded more at the end closer to TC 0, so the EV gain for those two TCs is probably not much more than the EV loss for TC +6. So with an index of +6 your EV is probably barely better than than an index of +9 for EV but you double 2.9% of your 9v7's with little gain and the gain you would have with an index of +6 would be for TC +9 or more, which is .98% of the time you get a 9v7. There is very little EV gain at the index but for a positive index the frequencies are much higher at the index and even higher when doubling puts out more money to have a lower EV below the index. Hopefully that is easy for Ds to understand. Griffin's point was when you double too early you increase variance and eat up a huge amount of the EV the double would bring you. (My commentary: From a volatility versus return perspective you are better off using BS than an index that has you prematurely doubling.) Griffin discusses the cost of error of using an index systematically prematurely versus systematically too late on pages 106-108 in The Theory of Blackjack. There Griffin says:
"Overall it seems, then, that the consequences of changing strategy too frequently will be more serious than those of not changing strategy often enough. Indeed, the Baldwin group foresaw this in their book, 'Ill considered changes will probably do more harm than good... Many players overemphasize the last few draws and, as a result make drastic and costly changes in their strategy'."
Last edited by Three; 06-15-2018 at 07:02 PM.
Tarzan has, for years, addressed me as "Poncho",
simply because he would see me playing SPANISH21
I will go out on a skinny limb here and suggest that the
first time that Tarzan addressed me as "Poncho" goes
back to 2009 I believe, and Tarzan was clutching his
ample girth, doubled over with guffaws. Foolish me, just
a disheveled emaciated senescent gamester, had suggested
(a few dozen times) that a joke has a short half-life, and while
there was nothing funny about it in the first place, he ought to
lay it to rest. Do I make comments re: Bombay Sapphire Gin to
Gin Rummy players?
Ya, ive studied this, but never in a book, but rather through years of raw practice.. I just kinda like to see others like myself breaking down the finer details of the game... Not really in a mathematical sense, but rather the mechanics of card counting itself..I mean if you ever found yourself in the "middle of round" debating for 5 minutes whether or not to hit or stand or doubling 11vA simply because theres most likely a small card in the hole than you can probably relate to what im talking about here..
Nevertheless, i have to be honest with myself and admit that alot of things that i do or "plays that i make" are sometime based on my own thoughts or ideas..So when you hear of someone else that actually SPlITS XXs below the desired index, or STANDS on the HIT index based solely on where your are in deck..Then its probably not a bad thing to try to compare a few notes..I mean after-all were blackjack players here..
http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi
Point taken. I’ll make sure I’m at or above the index number before I double in the future...at least on my hand.
This brings up a related topic. There is a lot of scavenger playing that goes on at my local casinos. Sometimes so many chips are flying around the table, I have a hard time keeping track of who’s chips are who’s. I participate in a lot of these scavenger plays and in fact encourage doubles that I know are positive EV but not quite at the index number. Ploppies usually feel better about making these doubles when I go halves with them.
Do you agree it’s a good move to double a 10 vs 10 (and several other doubles) slightly below the index number if you’re doing it on someone else’s hand? They will put up half, and I do the other half. I always do this. I have a couple ladies that think they win their double down more if I go halves with them.
As Don said, no difference in Hi-Lo.
It's +4 for 1.5 decks remaining
http://pokermenteur.free.fr/images/52-104.png
and +4 for 4.5 decks
http://pokermenteur.free.fr/images/208-260.png
Is it worth mentioning that this is not the case in KO?
Last edited by Phoebe; 06-16-2018 at 09:50 AM.
Something else EnriqueVasquezFromEastNogales the Hi-Lo player mentioned to me on his way out the door was, "F U Gringo! The index is whatever I want it to be!". Please keep in mind what I mentioned about a more clearly defined index, Phoebe. Maybe the Hi-Lo index does not alter for 12vs2, but the composition dependent index does. The line of demarcation for the index plays out a little differently with 1 deck remaining than it does with 4 decks remaining. The same Venn diagram example for 12vs2 would have considerably less overlap than 9vs7. I'm not saying the Hi-Lo index is incorrect, that you should panic, or change it, or go mental about it, I'm saying it's less defined if comparing it to composition dependent play, still quite correct, still quite functional.
Bookmarks