See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 53 to 58 of 58

Thread: Unplayable splitting strategies

  1. #53


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ericfarmer View Post
    when they both yield the same expected value, a value which is not actually achievable at the table.

    E
    They actually ONLY give the same values in the case of ENHC and regular BJ. In Australian Rules BJ (i.e. OBO), they are NOT identical and my calculations are closer to exact values because of the fact that the rounds depend on intra-round effects. When you are changing the strategy based on the effects of removal then they will not be identical.

    They are in fact playable, I explained exactly how they would be played based on the cards removed. I used SPL2 instead of 3 because I didn't feel like typing them all out. It's the same analysis.

    Thanks, this was an interesting discussion but we're going in circles now and I guess we're not going to be able to speak the same language unfortunately since you are correct and I'm obviously not understanding what you're saying is different.

  2. #54


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by MGP View Post
    They actually ONLY give the same values in the case of ENHC and regular BJ. In Australian Rules BJ (i.e. OBO), they are NOT identical and my calculations are closer to exact values because of the fact that the rounds depend on intra-round effects. When you are changing the strategy based on the effects of removal then they will not be identical.

    They are in fact playable, I explained exactly how they would be played based on the cards removed. I used SPL2 instead of 3 because I didn't feel like typing them all out. It's the same analysis.

    Thanks, this was an interesting discussion but we're going in circles now and I guess we're not going to be able to speak the same language unfortunately since you are correct and I'm obviously not understanding what you're saying is different.
    I find this frustrating, since it's reminiscent of similar behavior all the way back in 2003. I make a statement, that you disagree with. I provide elaborating argument and an explicit concrete example demonstrating the claim, and you still avoid direct response. Indeed, in this present case, k_c's comments reflect his understanding and acknowledgment of the problem as well. So you're effectively saying that *both* of us are wrong, but without any actual data to back up this claim.

    You say "they are in fact playable." This is very easy to resolve, in a way that you would indeed prove me wrong. And for those following along with this thread, you can participate, or at least envision participating, in this potential demonstration of my alleged error:

    Build a depleted shoe containing eleven 6s and five 8s. Deal an 8 up card to the dealer, and deal a pair of 6s to the player. Question 1: what is the CDP expected value of splitting this pair? Those reading along, you can use MGP's CA to answer this question, or you can use mine. Or because for some reason MGP is using my algorithm instead of his, MGP can re-do the calculation using his algorithm instead, by hand if necessary. At any rate, everyone in the room can verify that this value is 1548/715.

    Now let's progress into the split. Deal two additional 6s to the player, reflecting splitting and resplitting to the SPL3 maximum of four "half hands," each with just a single 6. Then deal an 8 to one of those split hands.

    Question 2: what should the player do now in this 6-8 vs. dealer 8 situation? MGP has the software, the algorithm, and the know-how to answer this question. He says this hand is playable. So, how should it be played? There are only three possible answers: stand, hit, or double down. Anything else is deflection. Which is it?

    E

  3. #55


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ericfarmer View Post
    Now let's progress into the split. Deal two additional 6s to the player, reflecting splitting and resplitting to the SPL3 maximum of four "half hands," each with just a single 6. Then deal an 8 to one of those split hands.
    Not to one of those split hands; to the far-right one. We have to play the game. We don't get to choose where to start. (I understand it makes no difference for the math. But let's play correctly.)


    Quote Originally Posted by ericfarmer View Post
    Question 2: what should the player do now in this 6-8 vs. dealer 8 situation? MGP has the software, the algorithm, and the know-how to answer this question. He says this hand is playable. So, how should it be played? There are only three possible answers: stand, hit, or double down. Anything else is deflection. Which is it?
    Well, if you're not allowed to reckon any of the cards (you're not counting), you hit your 14 vs. dealer 8. But that obviously isn't the discussion.

    Seems pretty clear that, reckoning all the cards, we double. But, to calculate e.v., are we allowing knowledge of the three sixes to our left or not? See BJA3, pp, 389-391 for the discussion and Cacarulo's methodology. I think we've been down this road before.

    Don

  4. #56


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    [QUOTE=DSchles;302521]Not to one of those split hands; to the far-right one. We have to play the game. We don't get to choose where to start. (I understand it makes no difference for the math. But let's play correctly.)[/QUOTE ]

    Right. Or left? That is, from the dealer's perspective or the players? I think newly split pair cards "grow to the right" from the player's perspective, and the dealer always "comes back" to the leftmost single card (also from the player's view), or do I have it backward? At any rate, you're right that for this discussion it makes no difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Well, if you're not allowed to reckon any of the cards (you're not counting), you hit your 14 vs. dealer 8. But that obviously isn't the discussion.

    Seems pretty clear that, reckoning all the cards, we double. But, to calculate e.v., are we allowing knowledge of the three sixes to our left or not? See BJA3, pp, 389-391 for the discussion and Cacarulo's methodology. I think we've been down this road before.

    Don
    Right, this is the key point all of this hinges on. How complex is our laminated strategy card, i.e., how much information about the cards in our current hand, and surrounding cards in the round, can we use to look up what action to take?

    There are a couple of common options, called CDP and CDPN, for which an exact EV can be calculated efficiently. But (I claim, using this depleted shoe round with CDP as a specific example) that those CDP[N] reported values are of academic interest at best, since you can't make a consistent strategy decision in the above situation-- interestingly, no matter what strategy is employed to complete the rest of the round-- that would yield the calculated EV.

    The problem is that to achieve the calculated EV, we need the dealer to deal the single additional card to each of the other three pair cards first, before coming back to the first 6-8 hand and asking us what to do.

    E

  5. #57


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ericfarmer View Post
    Right. Or left? That is, from the dealer's perspective or the players? I think newly split pair cards "grow to the right" from the player's perspective, and the dealer always "comes back" to the leftmost single card (also from the player's view), or do I have it backward? At any rate, you're right that for this discussion it makes no difference.
    So, as the player, and not the dealer, the first hand played is to MY right. And the resplits keep getting pushed over to the right, but that's somewhat irrelevant, as it's always the same card (rank). Finally, no, you play the split hands from your right to your left, just as the table hands progress from right to left.

    Quote Originally Posted by ericfarmer View Post
    There are a couple of common options, called CDP and CDPN, for which an exact EV can be calculated efficiently. But (I claim, using this depleted shoe round with CDP as a specific example) that those CDP[N] reported values are of academic interest at best, since you can't make a consistent strategy decision in the above situation-- interestingly, no matter what strategy is employed to complete the rest of the round-- that would yield the calculated EV.
    Right. And you see my argument in BJA3. BS means only the dealer's upcard and the cards in YOUR hand? Well, what's your hand? The two cards you're currently playing (with blinders on)? Maybe. But what are those other three sixes lying over to the left? Whose hand do they belong to? Yours eventually, but not at this instant, so you have to ignore them? Well, maybe! What's that? To determine BS for THIS hand, you ARE allowed to reckon those other sixes? OK, great. But, I can't also reckon any of the other cards on the table because, what, they don't BELONG to me?! Gets silly very quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by ericfarmer View Post
    The problem is that to achieve the calculated EV, we need the dealer to deal the single additional card to each of the other three pair cards first, before coming back to the first 6-8 hand and asking us what to do.
    I understand. Very interesting. I used to agonize over things like this but eventually came to understand that players (and, hence, my readers) crave practical information that they can turn into dollars but are less enamored of the pure theory if it truly can't help them make more money.

    Always lovely chatting with you.

    Don

  6. #58


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ericfarmer View Post
    I find this frustrating, since it's reminiscent of similar behavior all the way back in 2003. I make a statement, that you disagree with. I provide elaborating argument and an explicit concrete example demonstrating the claim, and you still avoid direct response. Indeed, in this present case, k_c's comments reflect his understanding and acknowledgment of the problem as well. So you're effectively saying that *both* of us are wrong, but without any actual data to back up this claim.

    You say "they are in fact playable." This is very easy to resolve, in a way that you would indeed prove me wrong....

    MGP has the software, the algorithm, and the know-how to answer this question. He says this hand is playable. So, how should it be played? There are only three possible answers: stand, hit, or double down. Anything else is deflection. Which is it?

    E
    It is not my intent to frustrate you. You may have missed it but I actually don't have access to my programs code in an editable way anymore. I'm not a programmer by profession and I haven't even looked at VB.Net for about 15 years. I can't even get my code to compile on my computer right now and have no idea how to begin to get to. If there's a bug with tiny shoes and splits, I can't even fix it - which btw is driving my OCD nuts. The reason the CA gets a different value than yours for that shoe is that it doesn't see the strategy as splitting. The code is on github:

    GitHub - Neurobaby/MGPs-BJ-CA: MGPs Blackjack Combinatorial Analysis. Exact calculations including splits and insurance.

    I even tried pulling up my recursive spreadsheet. It doesn't allow forced shoes so I'd have to completely reprogram that. I also thought my CA output the post-split hand EVs but it doesn't. I can get the -Ps simply by removing the appropriate number of P cards, but I can't get the -Ns easily like I thought I could. It calculates them but I guess I never finished that feature to output the values.

    I am not saying you're wrong, what I'm saying is that we must be speaking a different language.

    If I can find the time, I'll see if it's not too much trouble to update my recursive spreadsheet to deal with a forced shoe.
    Last edited by MGP; 02-03-2022 at 07:07 AM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Different strategies
    By Stas243 in forum Software
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-01-2015, 08:47 AM
  2. Splitting 10s for cover, splitting 10s for profit
    By counter19 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-02-2015, 07:53 AM
  3. complete zen strategies
    By MercySakesAlive in forum Software
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-22-2013, 05:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.