When not to double hard 11 vs 9 or Ten

[bjanalyst]

One of things that bothered me was doubling hard 11 v 9 or T when the deck is rich in Aces.

The game I play is six deck game, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS, Lucky Ladies and Super 4.

Where I play they offer Super 4 and Lecky Ladies so what I do is I keep the KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c for that game.

I bet Super 4 when KO - (AA89mTc + 5m9c) >= crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks..

Tc = Ten count = KO + AA89mTc

My Lucky Ladies bets is as follows for the six deck game, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS, Lucky Ladies and Super 4.

1. If Tc >= 24 I start betting $5 on LL.

2. If Tc >= 30 I start increasing my LL bet up to its maximum of $25.

3. If Tc < 24 but KO + 5m9c >= 24 then I bet $5 on LL

4. If Tc < 24 but QHexc = dp - QHp >= 2 then I bet $5 on LL where QHexc = excess QH's, QHp = QH played and dp = decks played.

My betting running count is brc = KO + (1/2)*(5m9c) with BCC = 98.6%.

And I have a bunch of playing strategy changes with KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c.

Using linear combinations of these three counts I get excellent derived counts for the side bets and for playing strategy variation that you cannot get with say HO2 w ASC. And as you know my KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc resoundingly beat HO2 w ASC and tied Tarzan. KO w 5m9c and AA89mTc is similar to KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc but using 5m9c instead of 5m7c helps with LL and Super 4 which is why I use the 5m9c instead of 5m7c with KO and AA89mTc.

This and much, much more will be covered in my books when I republish them myself.

But back to the reason for me writing this post.

Oftentimes i wonder about doubling hard 11 against an 9 or T.

The AA89mTc has the same SD as the HL and so varies for the six deck game, five decks dealt from -30 to +30.

I was playing with AA89mTc = (-24) and KO = crc(4) = 24 so I had a large bet out. I had hard 11 v 9 and I was wondering if I should double it or not. I was concerned about doubling because with AA89mTc being so negative there was a deficiency of Tens and and excess of Aces but I had not done the analysis for doubling. Sure enough when I doubled my hard 11 v 9 I hit with an Ace. The excess Aces are also not good for the player doubling as the dealer could have one of these excess Aces in the hole giving the dealer a 20.

So when I got home I did the analysis which I have attached as a PDF to this.

So here is it

Do NOT double but HIT hard 11 v 9 or hard 11 v T if (AA89mTc + 5m9c) < (-6 - tc(KO))*dr.

And note that the CC for these plays is around 90% where as the OK CC for these plays is around 70%. The AA89mTc and 5m9c adds a bunch of new information.

So in my situation there were two decks left and (AA89mTc + 5m9c) = (-24) and KO= 24 = crc(4) so tc(KO) = 4

So the calculations are (AA89mTc + 5m9c) = (-24) < (-6 - 4)*dr = (-10)*2 = (-20).

Therefore I should have hit hard 11 v 9 instead of doubling. But I did not know this at the time so I doubled.

This was especially bad since I had my maximum bet out. I did not like this especially when I knew there were a lot of Aces left in the shoe. But now I know.

So the rules for doubling hard 11 v 9, T, and Ace are:

Hit hard 11 v 9 or hard 11 v T if (AA89mTc + 5m9c) < (-6 - tc(KO))*dr

Double hard 11 v A if KO + AA89mTc + 5m9c >= crc(2)

See attached PDF for details. This is just a small sampling for all of additional information I will put in my new books.

Doubling hard 11 v 9 or Ten.pdf

[Freightman]

To alleviate your issues and concerns, consider the Regaled FBM ASC basic. For the greater effectiveness you seek, further consider the FBM advanced. Mastery of said systems will assist your 11 v 9 or 10 decisions.

[bjanalyst]

To alleviate your issues and concerns, consider the Regaled FBM ASC basic. For the greater effectiveness you seek, further consider the FBM advanced. Mastery of said systems will assist your 11 v 9 or 10 decisions.

Can you please give a link to this FBM system? I am just curious about it.

But I see FMB uses ASC so I already do not like it. ASC is an estimate dependent on estimating decks played and is difficult to keep. Plus/minus side counts are exact and are easy to keep.

In using a counting system I analyze (1) power (2) ease of use and (3) accuracy of the side counts and true counts which for the KO with a pivot of 4 the true counts near the pivot are insensitive to errors in estimating decks played. I doubt that FBM w ASC is more powerful than KO w 5m9c and AA89mTc (see CC below) and it is not as accurate as it uses ASC and is more difficult. FBM loses on all three grounds.

Also Gronbog has shown that KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc handily beats HO2 w ASC and ties Tarzan count and substituting 5m9c for 5m7c will yield similar results. Does FBM beat HO2 w ASC and does it tie with Tarzan's count? If not it is not worthwhile switching to a less powerful system that is also less accurate because of ASC and more difficult to use. KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c uses many of the HL indices so not a lot of new indices to learn.

I maximize the CC for all plays. If you look at the CC for doubling hard 9 v 11 the CC of the KO is increased from 62.9% to 89.1% and the CC for doubling hard 11 v T CC increased from 72.8% to 96.1% when KO + AA89mTc + 5m9c was used as the playing strategy running count for these plays. Doubling hard 11 v T occurs four times more frequently than doubling hard 11 v 9 and the CC is over 96%. You cannot do much better than that.

I used the technique of maximizing CC and it worked perfectly with ever sim that Gronbog did.

I will include three PDFs for your review. The first shows that sim results shows that every time the weighted CC increased, the SCORE increased. The 2nd is the HL w AA78mTc sims that I mentioned in the first PDF and the 3rd PDF is the sim of KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc which handily beats HO2 w ASC.

Sims show CC predict power.pdf
KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc sim.pdf
KO w 5m7c and AA89mTc sim.pdf

[Freightman]

I see - said the blind man trying to evaluate FBM ASC. I also analyze power, ease of use and accuracy of side counts.

FBM ASC May be used with any ace reckoned count. Like anything else, the more you put into it, the more you get. Utilizing halves with its already superior betting correlation matches Betting Correlation for the “perfect user” of Hi opt2 with ASC. Adding ASC to Halves is more simplistic than hiopt2, as it does not require calculations for BC. Increases in PE and IC show significant improvement with simpler calculations. Further, the accomplished user of FBM ASC advanced deals with the important concept of “Quality of true count” - a concept noticeably absent in the never ending repetitive monotony of your hundreds and hundreds of posts on the matter.

I note with interest your claims of improved performance over hiopt asc seems to be dependant on specific rule sets. Those limitations are absent utilizing both the FBM ASC Basic and Advanced systems.

Last, but not least, regardless of system utilized, the factor that can’t be measured is the issue of judgement. They’re of course other factors which come into play, but I question your experience level dealing with some of the true nuances of the game.

[ShipTheCookies]

You shouldn't even be at the table if the count calls for hitting 11 vs 9 or 10.

[Freightman]

You shouldn't even be at the table if the count calls for hitting 11 vs 9 or 10.

Of course you hit. Your point is wheather to double with that hit. Hmmm, perhaps your neural pathways are missing a nuance or 2.

[ShipTheCookies]

Of course you hit. Your point is wheather to double with that hit. Hmmm, perhaps your neural pathways are missing a nuance or 2.

I'll say this loud and clear..... as a card counter, YOU SHOULD NEVER BE AT THE TABLE IF THE COUNT DICTATES TO HIT ON 11 VS 9 OR 10 INSTEAD OF DOUBLING.

If you are at it and counting, you're NOT an AP!

[UNCBear4SJ]

I'll say this loud and clear..... as a card counter, YOU SHOULD NEVER BE AT THE TABLE IF THE COUNT DICTATES TO HIT ON 11 VS 9 OR 10 INSTEAD OF DOUBLING.

If you are at it and counting, you're NOT an AP!

The first time in this thread this was mentioned I also thought there are counting systems where you shouldn't double against a 9 or 10, but then I realized what you're getting at: when the count is negative enough to call for hitting rather than doubling, you should have gotten up already.

[Freightman]

I'll say this loud and clear..... as a card counter, YOU SHOULD NEVER BE AT THE TABLE IF THE COUNT DICTATES TO HIT ON 11 VS 9 OR 10 INSTEAD OF DOUBLING.

If you are at it and counting, you're NOT an AP!

So, your heads up at a hi limit table, no hole card, cruising uninterrupted at 300 HPH. . You can sim on the fly with various pen depths and know index play from the bottom of the toilet up to the stratosphere. You have other gambits in your toolkit. You can continue, likely without company for probably another hour. Are you really going to let that go.

My sims are based on play all, mostly heads up play. Why would I not play. You don’t know my games, stores, or conditions. Further, you missed something in my comments - why am I not surprised.

My results speak for themselves iver a very extended timeframe.You also missed something in OP novella.

[bjanalyst]

The first time in this thread this was mentioned I also thought there are counting systems where you shouldn't double against a 9 or 10, but then I realized what you're getting at: when the count is negative enough to call for hitting rather than doubling, you should have gotten up already.

That is what I thought also. That is why I never analyzed doubling hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T. I just figured like you did, if you were counting you would have left the table way before you got to a negative enough index not to double. But that is assuming that you are using only the HL count and the index for doubling hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T for the HL is (-6).

What you are overlooking is that the HL count is not a good count for doubling hard 11 v 9 with CC = 66.4% and hard 11 v T with CC = 66.1%.

So until this actually happened to me I had agreed with you that you would never be at the table playing at a true count low enough to justify hitting rather than doubling hard 11 V 9 or hard 11 v T which is why I never analyzed this situation.

So remember, I keep KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c which has two side counts so I get a lot more information than you have with just the HL.

So here is what happened. I play six decks, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS, Lucky Ladies and Super 4 offered.

I will attach the doubling hard 11 v 9, T PDF I sent earlier which I just reformate a bit for ease of reviewing.

As I mentioned AA89mTc has a SD the same as HL and HL can vary from -30 to +30 in the six deck game, five decks dealt. Therefore, so can AA89mTc, or (AA89mTc + 5m9c) which is used with the KO to determine whether to double hard 11 v 9, T or not.

So I use chips for my side count. The AA89mTc was insanely negative, like (-24) and there were two decks remaining. The 5m9c was +2 so (AA89mTc + 5m9c) = (-22). With AA89mTc being so negative I knew there was a deficiency of Tens and and excess of Aces left in the shoe so I was reluctant to double on hard 11 v 9 even thought tc(KO) = 4, that is KO > crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks because I had not analyzed if there is a point where you should not double with hard 11 v 9, T when the tc(KO) is high and you have your maximum bet out.

So I analyzed it when I got home using EoR and LSL technique which has been shown over and over again to be correct by simulations done by Gronbog. So I know my analysis is correct.

So in this case with (AA89mTc + 5m9c) = (-22) being so extreme it was actually correct for me to just hit hard 11 v 9 even though my tc(KO) > 4 and I had my maximum bet of $100 out. So I doubled and picked up an Ace and lost $200 where the correct play should have been to just hit.

So if you look at the attached PDF again you will see that you double hard 11 v 9 if KO + AA89mTc + 5m9c >= crc(-6). So you think would be way above a index of (-6) if you have tc(KO) = 4 with your maximum bet out. But in my case, you were not because AA89mTc was so negative.

So HL has a CC = 66.4% for doubling hard 11 v 9 but KO w 5m9c and AA89mTc has a CC = 89.1% for this play, a huge increased in the CC of 22.7%. So again HL is not a good count for this double but KO + AA89mTc + 5m9c is.

So the attached PDF shows that you should hit hard 11 v 9 and hit hard 11 v T whenever (AA89mTc + 5m9c) < (-6 - tc(KO))*dr where dr = decks remaining, that is tc(AA89mTc + 5m9c) < (-6 - tc(KO)) where tc = true count

So not doubling hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T happens with your large bets out only when (AA89mTc + 5m9c) is very negative.


In my case there were two decks remaining (dr = 2) and AA89mTc + 5m9c = (-22) so the calculation is AA89mTc + 5m9c = (-22) < (-6 - tc(KO))*dr = (-6 - 4)*dr = (-10)*dr = -20 since dr = 2 and tc(KO) = 4.

So the correct play was to simply hit hard 11 v 9 even thought tc(KO) = 4 and my maximum bet of $100 was out.

This shows the power of my KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c system. As shown by Gronbog's sims, when I used 5m7c instead of 5m9c the results was the count system resounding beat HO2 w ASC and tied Tarzan for the no LS game which was he only gave that I saw that Gronbog simulated the Tarzan count for.

I will include the no LS sims of Tarzan, KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c and HO2 w ASC for your review.

I am correct again. My LSL and CC worked every single time and have been to be correct with over a dozen various simulations that Gronbog did for me. Every single time my Weighted CC increased even by as little as 1% the SCORE increased.

I am correct again. I have been correct every single time. When Gronbog was analyzing HL + k*(7m9c) he came across his SCORE decreasing which was not in agreement with my CC. I then suggested how he might test his sim program to find the error. He then reanalyzed his sim program and found his error and the SCORE increased as indicated by my WACC and BE calculations. They have been correct every single time without exception.

Disadvantages of Simulations:
1. Take a long time to run and are tedious to set up.
2. Require the calculation of indices for each playing strategy (another potential source of error) for the counts being compared.
3. There is also the problem of variance with simulations which is reduced by increasing the number of hands simulated.


Advantages of Correlation Coefficients:
1. WACC and BCC can be done in a matter of minutes.
2. WACC and BCC are exact with zero variance.
3. WACC and BCC used to compare various counts require no indices.

Correlation Coefficients are calculated with the tag values of the count being analyzed and the EoR. EoR are LSL estimates, so they assume that blackjack is linear. Simulations have no assumptions on blackjack being linear. With less than one deck is remaining, non-linearity kicks in but CC still do a good job.

So please review attached PDFs. I am correct again as I have been for over a dozen times.

Doubling hard 11 vs 9 and T.pdf
KO w AA89mTc & 5m9c hard 11 v 9 double LSL analysis.pdf
HO2, Tarzan, KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c sims.pdf
KO with side counts CC.pdf

[Freightman]

That is what I thought also. That is why I never analyzed doubling hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T. I just figured like you did, if you were counting you would have left the table way before you got to a negative enough index not to double. But that is assuming that you are using only the HL count and the index for doubling hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T for the HL is (-6).

What you are overlooking is that the HL count is not a good count for doubling hard 11 v 9 with CC = 66.4% and hard 11 v T with CC = 66.1%.

So until this actually happened to me I had agreed with you that you would never be at the table playing at a true count low enough to justify hitting rather than doubling hard 11 V 9 or hard 11 v T which is why I never analyzed this situation.

So remember, I keep KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c which has two side counts so I get a lot more information than you have with just the HL.

So here is what happened. I play six decks, five decks dealt, S17, DAS, LS, Lucky Ladies and Super 4 offered.

I will attach the doubling hard 11 v 9, T PDF I sent earlier which I just reformate a bit for ease of reviewing.

As I mentioned AA89mTc has a SD the same as HL and HL can vary from -30 to +30 in the six deck game, five decks dealt. Therefore, so can AA89mTc, or (AA89mTc + 5m9c) which is used with the KO to determine whether to double hard 11 v 9, T or not.

So I use chips for my side count. The AA89mTc was insanely negative, like (-24) and there were two decks remaining. The 5m9c was +2 so (AA89mTc + 5m9c) = (-22). With AA89mTc being so negative I knew there was a deficiency of Tens and and excess of Aces left in the shoe so I was reluctant to double on hard 11 v 9 even thought tc(KO) = 4, that is KO > crc(4) = 4*n = 24 for n = 6 decks because I had not analyzed if there is a point where you should not double with hard 11 v 9, T when the tc(KO) is high and you have your maximum bet out.

So I analyzed it when I got home using EoR and LSL technique which has been shown over and over again to be correct by simulations done by Gronbog. So I know my analysis is correct.

So in this case with (AA89mTc + 5m9c) = (-22) being so extreme it was actually correct for me to just hit hard 11 v 9 even though my tc(KO) > 4 and I had my maximum bet of $100 out. So I doubled and picked up an Ace and lost $200 where the correct play should have been to just hit.

So if you look at the attached PDF again you will see that you double hard 11 v 9 if KO + AA89mTc + 5m9c >= crc(-6). So you think would be way above a index of (-6) if you have tc(KO) = 4 with yoru maximm bet out. But in my case, you were not because AA89mTc was so negative.

So HL has a CC = 66.4% for doubling hard 11 v 9 but KO w 5m9c and AA89mTc has a CC = 89.1% for this play, a huge increased in the CC of 22.7%. So again HL is not a good count for this double but KO + AA89mTc + 5m9c is.

So the attached PDF shows that you should hit hard 11 v 9 and hit hard 11 v T whenever (AA89mTc + 5m9c) < (-6 - tc(KO))*dr where dr = decks remaining, that is tc(AA89mTc + 5m9c) < (-6 - tc(KO)) where tc = true count

So not doubling hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T happens with your large bets out only when (AA89mTc + 5m9c) is very negative.


In my case there were two decks remaining (dr = 2) and AA89mTc + 5m9c = (-22) so the calculation is AA89mTc + 5m9c = (-22) < (-6 - tc(KO))*dr = (-6 - 4)*dr = (-10)*dr = -20 since dr = 2 and tc(KO) = 4.

So the correct play was to simply hit hard 11 v 9 even thought tc(KO) = 4 and my maximum bet of $100 was out.

This shows the power of my KO w AA89mTc and 5m9c system. As shown by Gronbog's sims, when I used 5m7c instead of 5m9c the results was the count system resounding beat HO2 w ASC and tied Tarzan for the no LS game which was he only gave that I saw that Gronbog simulated the Tarzan count for.

I will include the no LS sims of Tarzan, KO w AA89mTc and 5m7c and HO2 w ASC for your review.

I am correct again. My LSL and CC worked every single time and have been to be correct with over a dozen various simulations that Gronbog did for me. Every single time my Weighted CC increased even by as little as 1% the SCORE increased.

Be right back with the attached files.. .Give me 5 minutes









I never analyzed doulbing hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v A since I figured you would never be playing at the table since hte HL index for these doubles is

Attention BJAnalyst
No further PDFs pleeeeeeeze.

Attention ShitForCookies
I hate to say it as it might encourage OP. There’s some real common sense shit in comments quoted - common sense clearly missing from your arsenal.

[bjanalyst]

So, your heads up at a hi limit table, no hole card, cruising uninterrupted at 300 HPH. . You can sim on the fly with various pen depths and know index play from the bottom of the toilet up to the stratosphere. You have other gambits in your toolkit. You can continue, likely without company for probably another hour. Are you really going to let that go.

My sims are based on play all, mostly heads up play. Why would I not play. You don’t know my games, stores, or conditions. Further, you missed something in my comments - why am I not surprised.

My results speak for themselves iver a very extended timeframe. You also missed something in OP novella.

Attached is a two page PDF with my LSL analysis of doubling on hard 11 v T and hard 11 v 9.

I have yet to be proven incorrect. I have been correct EVERY SINGLE TIME. I have even been correct when Gronbog made tghe mistake in his sims of HL + k*(7m9c). I have not been incorrect one single time, period!

If you are keeping KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c the rule is to HIT instead of doubling hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T if (AA89mTc + 5m9c) < (-6 - tc(KO))*dr

Have fun trying to prove that I am incorrect. It is not going to happen.
Doubling hard 11 vs 9 and T.pdf
LSL analysis of hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T double.pdf

[Freightman]

Attached is a two page PDF with my LSL analysis of doubling on hard 11 v T and hard 11 v 9.

I have yet to be proven incorrect. I have been correct EVERY SINGLE TIME. I have even been correct when Gronbog made tghe mistake in his sims of HL + k*(7m9c). I have not been incorrect one single time, period!

If you are keeping KO with AA89mTc and 5m9c the rule is to HIT instead of doubling hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T if (AA89mTc + 5m9c) < (-6 - tc(KO))*dr

Have fun trying to prove that I am incorrect. It is not going to happen.
Doubling hard 11 vs 9 and T.pdf
LSL analysis of hard 11 v 9 and hard 11 v T double.pdf

Believe it or not, I’m not arguing with you. I was responding to post 7 wherein said poster, who shall remain nameless, said some dumb shit. What I also said, somewhere, is that there is some buried common sense shit in your post as it pertains to not doubling 11v9 or 10 given certain factors.

Now, the requirements to determine this stuff is outside of most arsenals. Further, I think my tidbits are better your tidbits. I’ve alluded to them, but have never discussed in detail - mostly because you have to listen to bullshit, such as from the unnamed poster, who can’t seem to see the forest for the trees.