1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Splitting Tens
I participate in conversations here as I am actively learning the game. I post in hopes of being corrected and learning when my understanding is off. If I have made a false statement, show me where it is incorrect.
Breaking down my post.. I have suggested that.
1. If you never play at a negative count, you'll make money in the long run flat betting. I'll stand by this. If you only play at the slight disadvantage of TC = 0 and all positive counts, you will have the advantage over the house. Sometimes you'll win, sometimes you'll lose. Overall, you will do well.
2. Index play alone will give you an extra .26% against the house edge. I'm willing to be corrected on this. The adjustment will be very, very close, but I don't have an exact number.
3. If you play with all indices, you are playing a very close to even game. Then if you bet more with favorable counts than you do with unfavorable counts, you'll win more than you lose. This is just math. A 1:4 spread may not be exciting or bring great profits, but you will win more than you lose in the long run. I'll stand by this statement as well.
Not practical, is it? How often does a 6 deck shoe go into a negative count, TC-1 or lower? You be getting up and down like a YO-YO.

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
I did not say it was practical (#1) - only mathematical. I figure that I first want to look at the mathematical ideal - and then deviate as little as possible so as to be practical.

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Splitting Tens
I participate in conversations here as I am actively learning the game. I post in hopes of being corrected and learning when my understanding is off. If I have made a false statement, show me where it is incorrect.
Breaking down my post.. I have suggested that.
1. If you never play at a negative count, you'll make money in the long run flat betting. I'll stand by this. If you only play at the slight disadvantage of TC = 0 and all positive counts, you will have the advantage over the house. Sometimes you'll win, sometimes you'll lose. Overall, you will do well.
2. Index play alone will give you an extra .26% against the house edge. I'm willing to be corrected on this. The adjustment will be very, very close, but I don't have an exact number.
3. If you play with all indices, you are playing a very close to even game. Then if you bet more with favorable counts than you do with unfavorable counts, you'll win more than you lose. This is just math. A 1:4 spread may not be exciting or bring great profits, but you will win more than you lose in the long run. I'll stand by this statement as well.
To avoid the crap comments directed to you, might be an idea to preface your comments with something like - I’m a newbie, my comments are subject to confirmation - I’m trying to learn by participation.

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
@Freightman - I'm not worried about it. This is a public online forum. If I needed to avoid negative comments, I wouldn't post. However, I want to learn, so posting (and sometimes being wrong) is part of the process. I actually appreciate when folks point out my misconceptions if they are able to back it up. I can certainly preface my comments more frequently, but that will not prevent some folks on a forum from needling (note that the post which you are referencing was made because the member knew I was new to the game).

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Splitting Tens
<snip>2. Index play alone will give you an extra .26% against the house edge. I'm willing to be corrected on this. The adjustment will be very, very close, but I don't have an exact number.<snip>
QUOTE

Splitting Tens,

Flat-betting and using HiLo playing indexes will NOT overcome the 0.26% house edge. Stanford Wong in "Professional Blackjack" states (at location 1139 in the Kindle version, or near the end of Chapter 3 in the print version):

"Simulation result for using basic strategy and flat \$26.54 bets, sitting through shoe after shoe, is a loss rate of \$15 per hour with a standard deviation of \$301."

and

"Simulation result for using flat \$26.54 bets hand after hand but varying strategy according to the count loses at the rate of \$14 per hour with a standard deviation of \$300."

Therefore, using playing indexes is worth \$1/hr on a total handle of (\$26.54/round)*(100 rounds/hr) = \$2654/hr: this is an improvement of just under +0.04%, so nowhere near the 0.26% house edge.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

6. 1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Not sure why this should be discussed with so many different viewpoints. Finding the answer is child's play with CVCX. Take a 4.5/6 S17 DAS game (no surrender the first time). From BJA3, house edge for BS is 0.404%. Now, flat bet this game in CVCX, which uses Sweet 16 (no ten splitting), and the edge drops to 0.344%. The gain is exactly 0.06%.

Now add surrender. BS house edge is now 0.331%. Flat betting is 0.256%. Improvement is 0.075%. End of story. No one's opinion necessary. Just the facts.

Don

Page 2 of 2 First 12

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•