The difference is so minimal that it doesn't matter. You are literally chasing pennies or maybe even fractions of a penny.
I had already instinctively figured that as long as I know Basic Strategy and the I-18, I did not need to get too concerned about further deviations and use simple judgement when making decisions. However, when I see such discussions, I sometimes wondered if I was paying a heavy penalty for not being precise. However, as I read (again and again) BJA3, my own intuition is supported. BJA3, page 93-97 and more shows the penalties we pay when we elect to be slightly off. For instance, the count is heavily negative and I insure my BJ (I dont, but if I did), the penalty I might be paying is pennies per hour. Another example in there is if you stand on 15 against a 7, one might pay a penalty of $2 per hour on a $25 bet. However, if you you do hit that hand in all negative situations, maybe elect to stand at TC3 because you dont know or remember the exact index, the penalty might be just a few pennies.
Because I dont know all the deviations, I do make mistakes but it feels good to know that the penalty is not that high and that I dont need to try to memorize everything. I know the index to 16 vs 10 might be to stand but if I chose to stand at TC-3, its not that big a penalty. I dont really know when to stand on 15 vs 10 but sometimes I stand at TC +3 or TC+4. Probably a mistake but bits okay.
I'm agreeing with Norm with if you have 16vsT and can't surrender you are screwed. It's a horribly negative expectation hand. How screwed? How horrible? With surrender available, you'd need to be down to around TC-7 to hit instead of surrender, a point that you should have wonged out unless there was some reason to stay. Thinking about the difference between -1,0,+1 whether to stand or hit when surrender is not available is not worth giving much thought to. Surrender, otherwise stand if surrender is unavailable is the way to go. The index is very broad brush compared to actual composition dependent play. It's possible be at TC-2 with the optimal decision to stand, and possible be at TC+2 with the optimal decision to hit! This hand, 16vsT, is heavily impacted by surplus and/or deficit (4,5). You can think of one surplus (5) as being the equivalent of three {T} removed. You can think of one surplus (4) as being the value of two {T} removed in pushing you in the direction to hit. Without factoring in key card impact, you are somewhere in the ball park at best, and whether you are at -2 or +2, to hit or stand (when surrender is unavailable) isn't going to make a lot of difference. Not to worry though, since even if you go with the very exact composition dependent play, it's not having a huge impact and you are screwed no matter what.
A few examples of what I'm talking about as follows:
DD, no surrender, 16vsT, 1.25 decks remaining, TC+2, no (4,5) have been removed, five (6) have been removed (2 deficit).-----HIT
DD, no surrender, 16vsT, 1.25 decks remaining, TC+2, more than eight (4,5) have been removed, no (6) have been removed (3 surplus).----- STAND
6D, no surrender, 16vsT, 3 decks remaining, TC-2, lots of (4,5) removed, enough to assume a substantial deficit, surplus middle cards, surplus (6).-----STAND
6D, no surrender, 16vsT, 3 decks remaining, TC-2, very few (4,5) removed, lots of (6) removed with eight in the remainder (4 deficit), deficit middle cards.-----HIT
The difference between composition dependent perfect play and simply going with surrender, otherwise stand if surrender is unavailable, is not that significant for this hand. What you are talking about in the original post is even less significant than that, since the index itself that you are going by is sort of broad brush. Don't freak out about whether not ever hitting 16 is going to hurt you in the long haul, it isn't. You've heard of pragmatism? What you are debating is the opposite of pragmatism.
Last edited by Tarzan; 11-11-2018 at 02:15 PM.
The 2 examples you chose to illustrate your point are both terrible. Taking insurance (or even money on a BJ) during a heavily negative count will cost you several dollars per hour not pennies as you say. Assuming your min bet is $25 and the dealer has an ace up an average of 10x per hour. Even just doing it once an hour could cost you over $5 in EV.Originally Posted by ZeeBabar
The other example has already been addressed by freightman.
You realise that your edge to begin with is not that high and every "little mistake" adds up to erode it away. If you were arguing that making a mistake every now and then wasnt a disaster I would agree. But u seem to think that consistently playing incorrectly is ok. It isn't.
while i normally don't take even money on bjs if you get 100 hands an hour, you're getting about 5 bjs an hour. every 13 bjs the dealer will have an ace up.
you're not even doing it once an hour. then to top it off some of the time you take insurance it will actually be correct.
It's indeed chasing fractions of a penny, but the point is that the difficulty is not increased for "memorizing stand @ RC 1 or more" compared to "memorizing stand @ TC 0 or more".
Composition-dependent play would absolutely perform better, but it's not a fair comparison cause it's more taxing on memory. Hi-Opt 2 can perform much better, but again, the level of difficulty also increases.
We don't memorize all the insignificant indices like "double 8 vs 7 @ TC 14 or more" for the extra penny because the difficulty is increased.
I make a switch because it's a free lunch. Without the extra effort, the fractions of an extra penny is worth it in my eyes.
That depends on how you look at things. it is only pennies because you will rarely use the index plays. Once you have he matchup over the index it isn't pennies anymore. I memorized all the indices up to TC +26. I wasn't sure exactly what the really big indices were because I never got to use them to help me be sure of what they were. Then one day I had a TC of +30 with a couple decks left before the cut card while paying heads up. I didn't know exactly what a lot of the indices for the plays I made during the rest of the shoe but I knew that there were indices for the plays and that the indices had to be exceeded. I made a shitload more money than I would have otherwise on the shoe because I knew to make those index plays. You could say they add a penny to you lifetime hourly but in that shoe they were worth many thousands of dollars. It all depends on how you look at the value of the plays. The way I look at it they were worth many thousands of dollars. I may never use those indices again but they were well worth knowing just for that one shoe. It takes forever to get one of those true monster outlier shoes. Why not be ready to make the most of one when and if you are lucky enough to get one?
You do know that using an index near 0 for this play will quickly get you flagged as a counter if they ever evaluate you. 16vT is the top play on their short list of plays to watch to quickly identify a counter. They look for very frequent matchups that have near neutral indices so they can expect to quickly observe you playing the hand differently on both sides of the index. 16vT is one of the most frequent matchups and its index is 0 and it is in the I18. It is exactly what they are hoping to observe you play two different ways to decide to further evaluate your play. The way to avoid this is to play it the same all the time which would mean to always stand, or to use a much more negative index so you stand almost all the time but if you are still playing with a huge disadvantage you can save a penny by hitting. The cost of making that index play is often the first step toward a quick back off. Is that worth that extra penny? The correct BS for a counter is to always stand on 16vT. The value of deviating from that by hitting is almost nothing unless you plan on playing a lot of big disadvantage rounds.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks