"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
In calculating precise indices, you'll find that for quite a few hands, 8vs4, 9vs7, 9vs8, 10vsT, 10vsA, 15vs8, 15vs9, 15vsT, and the list goes on, that the index moves dependent upon number of decks remaining. The index for the play is different at one deck remaining than what it is with 4 decks remaining. Some hands remain absolutely in sync with the index constant regardless of numbers of decks remaining, though. I've noticed slight variations in people's calculations dependent upon method used, however quite close to one another, over here it's +1 but over there it's +2 sort of thing, but I thought I'd bring up that fascinating fact, the index moving up or down dependent upon number of decks remaining with certain hands, whereas on others it doesn't.
This is reasonable. The portion of pairs will drop a lot as the number of decks drops, while the portions of all other hands will slightly increase. All these indices involving pairs will change a lot with the number of decks.
Email: [email protected]
No aceside, that's completely false. That makes sense as to the number of original decks -- not remaining decks. Tarzan is correct in that indices can change as penetration changes. That's because TC frequencies change.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
I am not so sure but I guess the root problem is the disproportion of the pair to the non-pair. TC frequency is not the main problem.
Email: [email protected]
You are posting nonsense again. A shoe is a shoe, from start to end. Knowledge of the shoe changes as you see more cards. The shoe itself does not change. TC frequencies change as knowledge increases. Suppose you cut in a different spot. Would you expect pair frequencies to change?
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
To prove I am right, let me show you an example. For a 8-deck shoe, when I have a hand of (7,7)vs8, I split the (7,7) pair when TC>+2 during the first two decks, but split the (7,7) pair when TC>-1 during the last two decks. This is the same shoe, but I play the remaining two decks as if they are a 2-deck new shoe. Have I been using the correct strategy?
Last edited by aceside; 04-13-2021 at 10:09 PM.
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Sigh. Is there any possibility, remote as it may be, that, going forward, you might possibly think before you put your foot squarely in your mouth? Is there any possibility that you'll show any kind of humility whatsoever, when discussing blackjack with some of the foremost authorities in the world, and entertain some restraint in trying to teach us one more ridiculously absurd theory after another?
Don
Bookmarks