Any thought on 11 double T, 9, for NEG TC?

[BJcountingmaster]

I found that for TC < -4 : 11 double T or 9 is actually not as good as simply HIT!

Any thought?

[Freightman]

I found that for TC < -4 : 11 double T or 9 is actually not as good as simply HIT!

Any thought?

Hit

[Dog Hand]

I found that for TC < -4 : 11 double T or 9 is actually not as good as simply HIT!

Any thought?

Hmm... If only we had an index number for that play... ;-)

Dog Hand

[21forme]

Hmm... If only we had an index number for that play... ;-)

Dog Hand

Funny, that was my first thought...

[DSchles]

FWIW, and for whoever cares, for a six-deck game, the correct doubling indices for both 11 vs. T and 11 vs. 9 are -5. This mean that if the TC = -5, you still double. You need TC strictly less than floored -5 to hit. These indices are both the result of the current work that Gronbog and I are doing and CVData's Beat to Death feature.

Those of you who are using Wong's -4 indices from Pro BJ (for the 4-deck game) might want to take note. To me, the whole thing is academic in that a) at -5 you have a minimum bet out, and b) you shouldn't even be at the table.

Don

[Gronbog]

Those of you who are using Wong's -4 indices from Pro BJ (for the 4-deck game) might want to take note.

Speaking of "academic" -- Wong's indices (1994) are for truncating the true count conversion. If he had used flooring, then his index would also likely have been -5.

[DSchles]

Speaking of "academic" -- Wong's indices (1994) are for truncating the true count conversion. If he had used flooring, then his index would also likely have been -5.

Yes, good point. His decision to change the way he calculated the indices caused tremendous confusion back in the day. He cautioned him against doing it but to no avail.

Don