Any Plays to Avoid?

[LoKee]

Wow, I started with basic strategy and NEVER have had a problem with hitting a soft 18 against anything using bs, I know I made the right play. I do want to know what people think about hitting the 12v4 at rc 0 or less. I've found that mostly when I stand on a 16 v 10 with rc 0 or more, many times I would have busted, so I have no problem doing that. But what do you guys think about the deviation of 12 v 4 hitting at rc 0 or less ? Thanks in advance. It was my question of the day I came up with after falling asleep listening to Gambling with an Edge, one of my favorite podcasts.

[LoKee]

What video is this ? Do you have a link to it ? I would like to see that. Thanks in advance.

[DSchles]

I do want to know what people think about hitting the 12v4 at rc 0 or less.

Just FYI, you don't hit at TC = 0. You stand. You hit only if the TC is strictly less than zero. All hit/stand indices are to be interpreted as: stand if the TC is greater than or equal to the number.

Don

[Gronbog]

I do want to know what people think about hitting the 12v4 at rc 0 or less

First of all, it's one of the original I18, so it clearly has value under the rules, conditions, playing style and betting ramp used in that study. But what about other rules, conditions, playing styles and betting ramps? From results gathered thus far by me and Don for our index ranking project, here are a few observations about this play. Some of these should already be obvious to experienced players:

Since the deviation from basic strategy is made below the index, and the index is zero, you will almost always have a minimum bet out when making this play, so its value comes from the relatively high frequency of the departure combined with the high rate at which the EVs for hitting and standing diverge below the index. In other words, the play is made often and is too valuable to pass up despite the low average bet.

However, you only experience that high frequency in play-all situations. For back-counting, the value of this play is greatly reduced because you rarely make it and, if you do, the true count is close to the index.

Without giving too much away, for Hi-Lo and using SCORE as the metric for comparison under the sim conditions of BJA3 Chapter 10 (which implies optimal betting), this play ranks highly for both 6 deck and DD games in play-all situations under a variety of rule sets and using a variety of bet spreads. For back counting scenarios for the same games, if you didn't already know this index and it wasn't so easy to remember, you might not want to even bother learning it.

[Freightman]

Don said

You stand. You hit only if the TC is strictly less than zero. All hit/stand indices are to be interpreted as: stand if the TC is greater than or equal to the number

12 v 4 is VERY common and differentiating at strict TC 0 leaves you open to lots of surveillance info on you leaving you exposed.

My prevailing game is 6d ES10 H17 etc.
My prevailing TC 0 bet is 1 unit, sometimes 2 (sometimes 3 or 4 units) Additional cost of waiting is minor and provides lots more hands at stand before deviation.

I ignore many other index plays at strike point.
8 v 6 at +1 - far too common. Besides, RA3 captures most expected value at RA 3.
14 v 10 is surrender at TC 0. Again, very common. I hit all 1 unit bets and typically surrender (most) 2 unit bets and above.
Insurance (Halves) at TC 3.4 - depends on quality of my hand. Insurance for less is a nice gambit here.
Etc., etc.

Three things to keep in mind
1. Index strike point tends to be EV maximizing, however, your long term gain by using index at strike point is not going to make a hill of beans worth of difference in the long run (insurance because of it’s value to the counter is worth additional consideration)
2. RA indices in themselves provide a certain level of cover
3. The regaled FBM ASC Advanced provides additional information upon decision making

[Freightman]

Gronbog said

Without giving too much away, for Hi-Lo and using SCORE as the metric for comparison under the sim conditions of BJA3 Chapter 10 (which implies optimal betting), this play ranks highly for both 6 deck and DD games in play-all situations under a variety of rule sets and using a variety of bet spreads. For back counting scenarios for the same games, if you didn't already know this index and it wasn't so easy to remember, you might not want to even bother learning it.

Gronbog is right, but……..Four comments here
1. You will make money without deviating
2. Cost of deviation is covered in the play all spread (intimated by Gronberg)
3. Additional information trumps index points

A last point, in itself worth a separate thread or debate

Optimal is optimal, SCORE is SCORE and in themselves can’t be argued with. Stakes, game type, game approach, table population and cut for that matter all can influence style of play which in itself can create deviations from Optimal. I could add significantly to these comments, however, these should be enough to create some debate.

[WABJ11]

3. The regaled FBM ASC Advanced provides additional information upon decision making

What is FBM and ASC? Some skill check system?

[bejammin075]

What is FBM and ASC? Some skill check system?

Another question is: What is the sound of one man regaling?

[Freightman]

What is FBM and ASC? Some skill check system?

A link to a prior thread provides a wealth of information.

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...t=Breakthrough

[Gronbog]

You will make money without deviating

Just to be clear, this might be better stated as "not deviating will not turn an overall winning game into a losing one". However, playing this holding in isolation has extreme negative EV regardless of what you do -- in the neighbourhood of -20% near the index for both 6D and DD. You lose less by deviating and the penalty for not deviating increases very quickly, mostly because the EV for standing decreases steeply as the count decreases. Playing this holding only becomes positive EV at extreme positive counts (stand) and this is much more likely to occur for DD games.

[Freightman]

Just to be clear, this might be better stated as "not deviating will not turn an overall winning game into a losing one". However, playing this holding in isolation has extreme negative EV regardless of what you do -- in the neighbourhood of -20% near the index for both 6D and DD. You lose less by deviating and the penalty for not deviating increases very quickly, mostly because the EV for standing decreases steeply as the count decreases. Playing this holding only becomes positive EV at extreme positive counts (stand) and this is much more likely to occur for DD games.

Thank you. Absolutely agreed.