Practicing a hybrid count(DD only) derived from the RPC count ive become pretty efficient for the "play of hands" in "double deck" games.. And although other hybrid counts could be used i felt this one was best in terms of "EoR" in correlation to betting and playing decisions, while trying to keep it as practical as possible...Code:/012222100 -2-2\ +1 -1+3 112232100-3
Count 1> 12222100-2-2(2-A)
Count2>112232100-3(A-X)
As you may have already noticed Count 1 is for betting while count Count 2 is primarily used for hands 12-16 and insurance purposes..Now, without making things to complex it may obvious to some why count 1. has a higher "playing efficiency" for doubling on 10 than count 2 would..Likewise Count 2. has a much higher "playing efficiency" for doubling on 11 than Count 2. would..Therefore, its easy enough to reason why only one index is needed for hands 10-16, and insurance purposes..But heres where i start to get a little confused. And even though i have a pretty good idea on whether or not Count 1. or Count 2. should be used for the remainder of the hands, im still unsure if Ndas, re-splitting or even if H17 makes a difference in which count becomes the one more efficient to use..For example, if re-splitting Aces is not allowed then its safe enough to assume that Count 2. would be a more accurate decision since it tags the ace as +1(as well as soft hands A2-A6)...
So heres one of my questions: Although im pretty confident and fairly certain only 1 index is needed for doubling on hands
7-10 and Count 1. would have the better efficiency for the play of these hands, im still uncertain when it comes to splits and whether or not double after splitting plays a factor or not.. Note that I have reason to believe that Count 1. would be better when "double after splits" are allowed and Count 2. for when they are not..What really brought this to My attention was when it came to splitting XXs.. I started noticing "in practice" (on a blackjack program) that there were many times when the index for splitting XXs was falling a little short of one count but high enough for the other and other times it was the exact opposite even the EV showed splitting...
What im trying to say here, is that since (what i believe) BOTH count 1 and count 2. have an almost EQUAL playing efficiency for splitting XXs i decided to learn BOTH indexes FOR THESE HANDS ONLY (and of course since its such a valuable index). So my main question i ask is, if the index for count 1. for example is +8 for splitting XXs while the index is +10 for count 2 wouldnt it be okay to make this play on whichever index comes first?
Note:I ask this because BOTH counts are very efficient for this particular hand, unlike doubling on 10 and 11 where one count is superior over the other one..
Bookmarks