Thanks for the response everyone! I really appreciate it.
@ Freight: I will, of course, not be offended by any beratement for asking this due to my ignorance on this matter, but getting this correct is more important to me than receiving any scorn or ridicule.
In your quote above, I assume you meant stand in positive running counts. You know what happens when one assumes, so please confirm whether my assumption is correct.
Additionally, I obviously did not know the reference you made regarding holding a 6 in a >2 card 16, so could you please provide a reference or source? I'd like to read the article/book where that is found. If it's Don's BJA, I will be very embarassed for missing it, but (again) getting this correct is more important to me than being embarassed.
Thank you in advance.
Well, from 1 arrogant ass to another, I don’t think the question is silly at all. To clarify, paraphrased and abbreviated, hit 2 card 16 at neg RC, stand 0 or above. In 3 card 16, generally stand, but hitting is correct in a positive count, if one of the 3 cards is a 6. It’s slight.
I recall Don challenging me, which wasn’t difficult, as to why that would be correct. I’ll see if I can find at least 1 of the references alluded to from posts that were months, if not years apart. I doubt that it’s in BJA.
The other thread would mention s9mething about count
Thread 16 v 10, following post by Don
10,4,2; 10,3,3; 9,7; 9,4,3; 9,5,2; 8,4,4; 8,5,3; 8,6,2;
Since this is the first hand of the deck, and you are alone, BS tells you to hit 10,6 or 9,7. You don't need a count system for that, but, since the RCs would be negative, in any event, the counts would tell you to hit also.
For the three-card hands, all of the point counts would tell you to stand, because all the RCs would be positive. And that would be correct for six of the seven hands you give. Unfortunately, for 8,6,2 vs. T, your count would tell you to stand, but, for the first hand of the deck, the proper play is to hit. In fact, the play isn't even close. You're more than two percent better hitting that hand than standing, so this is a case where the count tells you to do the wrong thing.
Don
The rest of that thread is worth reading, including the philosophical post below, worthy of a Talmudic discussion
1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Just look to basic strategy which says hit, think about Wong and 3 card 16's , which say stay - so, hit 2 card 16, stand 3 card 16, then, first hand or not, heads up or not, what's RC before you make your decision and make the best index hit it stand decision.
Further philosophical direction
I shovelled the sidewalk last week (fat chance), and after doing so I sat down and had a glass of wine. The day was really quite beautiful, and the drink facilitated some deep thinking.
My wife walked by and asked me what I was doing, and I said, "Nothing." The reason I said "nothing" instead of saying "just thinking" is because she then would have asked, "About what?" At that point I would have had to explain that men are deep thinkers about various topics, which would lead to other questions.
Finally, I pondered an age old question: "Is giving birth more painful than getting kicked in the nuts?"
Women always maintain that giving birth is way more painful than a guy getting kicked in the nuts, but how could they know?
Well, after another glass of wine, and some more heavy deductive thinking, I have come up with an answer to that question. Getting kicked in the nuts is more painful than having a baby, and even though I obviously couldn't really know, here is the reason for my conclusion. A year or so after giving birth, a woman will often say, "It might be nice to have another child."
On the other hand, you never hear a guy say, "You know, I think I would like another kick in the nuts."
I rest my case. Time for another wine and then, maybe a nap.
See first 2 lines. Then reflect on the philosophical direction provided and consider the newly presented ball count for ace side count.
This makes no sense to me at all. These kinds of adjustments apply to basic strategy players because they are accurate off the top of the shoe. I don't know if this one is accurate or not. In the absence of other information, the composition of your hand implies enough about the composition of the remaining cards to warrant a change in strategy.
However, when counting, the composition of the cards which have been dealt and hence of those which remain is represented by the running count. What difference does it make if there is a 6 in your hand vs in some else's hand or even dealt during the previous round? These all represent the same depletion of a 6 from the remaining cards.
Once again. The running count is +10 with 2 decks remaining to play. Do you really believe that the presence of a 6 in your multi card 16 vs T is enough to negate the sizeable advantage of standing over hitting?
I'm certain that you're mistakenly applying a composition dependent basic strategy rule of thumb to card counting.
I just read the transcription of the other thread. As I suspected, the first sentence is "Since this is the first hand of the deck, and you are alone". Nothing in that post implies that these hands should be hit against the recommendation provided by your counting system when it's no longer the first hand of the shoe or in the presence of other players.
I'm also wondering if this might only be a single deck issue.
Last edited by Gronbog; 02-14-2020 at 12:24 PM.
Bookmarks