4-4 splitting or doubling

[Nitram]

Two questions for splitting 4s.

1. On page 254 of professional blackjack:

" ** With 4-4, splitting is better than doubling down only if doubling is allowed after splitting."

So on page 267, if were playing a S17, NDAS, 4 deck game, the high low index for 4-4 vs a dealer 5 in that game would be to DOUBLE this hand at a true 8. Am I understanding this correctly?


2. On that same row, I believe the index number for 4-4 vs 6 may be incorrect. It says 18. Should it be 8, instead?


Thanks for your help.

[21forme]

You are looking in the wrong place. Those indices you mention are for splitting, not doubling. Go up to the double section, where the indices to double 8v5 and 8v6 are 3 and 1, respectively.

[DSchles]

You are looking in the wrong place. Those indices you mention are for splitting, not doubling. Go up to the double section, where the indices to double 8v5 and 8v6 are 3 and 1, respectively.

But what could the 8 and 18 (??) possibly represent?? Note that, for the Halves count, there is no value given for splitting 4,4 vs. 6 if NDAS. But what could those indices mean, in any event? You're going to treat 4,4 as 8, if you can't DAS, and you're going to double. Are we now saying that, vs. 5, we double only from 3 to 7, but that at 8 or higher, splitting is better than doubling? Why would anyone want to start with two 4s if you can't DAS? There should be NO indices there whatsoever! Something is very wrong here.

I'm going to write to Wong and Al.

Don

[Meistro123]

Maybe it is for if doubling is restricted say to 10 or 11?

[G Man]

Two questions for splitting 4s.1. On page 254 of professional blackjack:" ** With 4-4, splitting is better than doubling down only if doubling is allowed after splitting."So on page 267, if were playing a S17, NDAS, 4 deck game, the high low index for 4-4 vs a dealer 5 in that game would be to DOUBLE this hand at a true 8. Am I understanding this correctly?2. On that same row, I believe the index number for 4-4 vs 6 may be incorrect. It says 18. Should it be 8, instead?Thanks for your help.

That means in a NDAS game, you would split 4-4 vs 5 at +8 and 4-4 vs 6 at +18
You need a very high TC to offset the NDAS split.
However, these numbers are higher than those for Doubling 4-4 vs 5 or 6...so we can conclude that they are included for the games where you cannot double a total of 8, like a D9 game.

[JBourne]

The answer is on page 270 in the key for **.
Those indices are for situations where you are not allowed to double 8, otherwise always double 8.

[G Man]

This is what I was just saying.

we can conclude that they are included for the games where you cannot double a total of 8, like a D9 game.

I tried to replicate Wong's numbers using CVIndex but I was unable. Looks like even when specifiying a D9 game, CVIndex won't generate the 4-4 splitting index in a NDAS game...If anyone can do it, I'll be happy to see if the numbers are close to Wong's publication.

[Norm]

With single deck, NDAS, D9, I get

44v5 +8
44v6 +20

RS:

44v5 +11
44v6 No split

[Jack Jackson]

This is what I was just saying. I tried to replicate Wong's numbers using CVIndex but I was unable. Looks like even when specifiying a D9 game, CVIndex won't generate the 4-4 splitting index in a NDAS game...If anyone can do it, I'll be happy to see if the numbers are close to Wong's publication.

Try setting the penetration level deeper..