I'm having an issue generating indexes, where even though in the full report it shows that splitting (8,8) has a better expected value than not splitting, it still tells me not to split. These are not risk averse indexes, so they should be maxing expected value. While I do want to use risk-averse indexes, I want to figure out the issue here first so that I know I can trust what I get when I compute them.
I also find it weird that there's no index for splitting (X, X) against 5 or 6. The full report for this one though doesn't go to a high enough count to show whether splitting will eventually have a higher expected value. It looks like if it just tracked 1 or 2 counts higher, then splitting would be better.
Here are the rules of the game:
single-deck
dealer hits on soft 17
double only on 9, 10, 11
no double after split
re-split aces
no surrender
Fixed rounds: rounds+players = 6
The counting system is unbalanced zen 2, and I use an initial running count of -1.
I attached the indexes I generated, which were the big 63 plus (8, 8) against X, but without the ones that didn't make sense for this game. I also attached the full report where you can see how the expected value changes at different counts.
Has anyone else had a similar issue?
Indexes:
Indexes.png
Full Report:
Full Report-compressed.pdf
Export:
Bookmarks