Lack of Aces with a high count

[Dawis]

Playing double deck, you see 6 aces out right away, but the count is high.
Is it worth staying in or is it time to wong out or at least lower your bet?
Thanks!

[ZeeBabar]

Playing double deck, you see 6 aces out right away, but the count is high.
Is it worth staying in or is it time to wong out or at least lower your bet?
Thanks!

I play HiLo and bet with the count. I would bet as required irrespective of Aces as the count factors it in.

[stopgambling]

i remembered reading about bj accounts for half of your edge therefore it maybe better to bet 1/2 of your normal bet ramp. For a real solution you are going to need the expert to chime in. Since these situation is infrequent , i don't think it will hurt your edge all that much long term by going either way( i would 1/2 my normal ramp),especially DD bj.

[hypercube]

what you described is a very negative ev situation, bad count systems like hilo would bet heavily into this which as you know is just stupid.

[PinkChip]

what you described is a very negative ev situation, bad count systems like hilo would bet heavily into this which as you know is just stupid.

When the HiLo count is high despite of many aces having come out, this means that an excess of low cards have come out, too, and few ten-value cards. So the remaining shoe or pack contains not only a lack of aces but also an excess of ten-value cards, which is advantegeous to the player and likely a plus EV situation (and it favours insurance bets).

[Meistro123]

I mean, you could provide more info, like rules, how high is high etc, but I think you should have a solid edge still despite the lack of aces.


Using
http://www.bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

I killed 3 3s, 3 4s, 3 5s, and 3 6s, as well as 6 aces. The end result was a player advantage of 1.352. A bit small considering we are at true 3 in a S17 double deck game, but still a strong advantage at a relatively small true count.

[DSchles]

I mean, you could provide more info, like rules, how high is high etc, but I think you should have a solid edge still despite the lack of aces.

Using
http://www.bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

I killed 3 3s, 3 4s, 3 5s, and 3 6s, as well as 6 aces. The end result was a player advantage of 1.352. A bit small considering we are at true 3 in a S17 double deck game, but still a strong advantage at a relatively small true count.

This is exactly the right general answer. Despite a deficiency of aces, the high Hi-Lo primary count definitely confers an advantage to the player. But, as you properly pointed out, because of the reduced probability for a blackjack at that high count, the overall edge is somewhat -- but not completely -- diminished. So, I might bet as if the TC were at least one point lower than calculated, but not very much more.

Don

[Dawis]

This is exactly the right general answer. Despite a deficiency of aces, the high Hi-Lo primary count definitely confers an advantage to the player. But, as you properly pointed out, because of the reduced probability for a blackjack at that high count, the overall edge is somewhat -- but not completely -- diminished. So, I might bet as if the TC were at least one point lower than calculated, but not very much more.

Don

Thank you!

[Dawis]

I mean, you could provide more info, like rules, how high is high etc, but I think you should have a solid edge still despite the lack of aces.


Using
http://www.bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi

I killed 3 3s, 3 4s, 3 5s, and 3 6s, as well as 6 aces. The end result was a player advantage of 1.352. A bit small considering we are at true 3 in a S17 double deck game, but still a strong advantage at a relatively small true count.

Thank you!