Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 46

Thread: Index to surrender 8,8 v T?

  1. #14
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I can't imagine why you would do that. Using RC on zero index plays with a zero TC makes sense. But, this sounds like an added complication with little if any value.
    Last edited by Norm; 01-10-2022 at 04:45 PM.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  2. #15
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,154


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    aceside, that is completely incorrect. Please make your post opinions or questions instead of statements of fact as you are rarely correct.
    I have double checked this part. For the hand 8,8 vs T, the HiLo deviation index for split/surrender should be +2 for 8-deck DAS games. This is consistent with Gronbog's number. However, what I really want is this index number for 2-deck games, because this is my profit-making game. Can you guys help provide these numbers for HiLo? I don't do Wong halves.

  3. #16
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,154


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by k_c View Post
    From the data I can generate it appears that late surrender 8-8 v T for 2 decks using Wong Halves (doubled) can most simply be covered by running count. Surrender if RC >= 5 approximately covers most cases. Later in shoe lower to RC >= 4.

    Code:
    Count tags {2,-1,-2,-2,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2}
    2 decks, 8-8 versus T, late surrender
    
    Cards remaining     RC Index        TC ref
    (before up card)
    _____________________________________________________
    102-99              Do not surr     --
    98                  >=5             +2.65
    97                  >=6             +3.22
    96-68               >=5             +2.71 to +3.82
    67-12               >=4             +3.10 to +17.33
    11-9                >=3             +14.18 to +17.33
    <9                  No subsets or not enough cards
    k_c
    Great! Based on your calculation, the TC index for Wong halves should be +3 for 2-decks. In real casino 2-deck games, I rarelly surrender this hand 8,8,vs T. It seems your results support my own practice. One more thing, are the TC indices for Wong halves and HiLo the same? If they are the same, I will use your numbers.
    Last edited by aceside; 01-10-2022 at 05:48 PM.

  4. #17
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Good grief. You're going to turn this thread yellow.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  5. #18


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    With the indexes fixed for the other affecting plays, and solving for just 88 v T surrender, CVData is giving me +1 (risk averse) for DAS multideck, and +0 for EV-maximizing (but it's close to +1). With some alternative tags from a higher PE side count, the index is also +1. I hate splitting eights against a Ten, but I do what the math says. At least now I can surrender this hand more often and be in agreement with the probabilities.

  6. #19
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,154


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Sorry. I misread k-c Count tags {2,-1,-2,-2,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2}.
    If that is the case, I should use the HiLo TC index of +1.5 for 2-deck games. Is this correct? I don't know how to find the deviation indices for 2-deck games, but I am pretty sure those for 6 and 8-deck games.
    Last edited by aceside; 01-10-2022 at 06:07 PM.

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Good grief. You're going to turn this thread yellow.
    Well, he does spout a bunch of urine.

  8. #21
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Yeah, basically a counter shouldn't split 88vT. It's a reverse index. So, you're stuck with a crap hand with two removed eights.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bejammin075 View Post
    With the indexes fixed for the other affecting plays, and solving for just 88 v T surrender, CVData is giving me +1 (risk averse) for DAS multideck, and +0 for EV-maximizing (but it's close to +1). With some alternative tags from a higher PE side count, the index is also +1. I hate splitting eights against a Ten, but I do what the math says. At least now I can surrender this hand more often and be in agreement with the probabilities.
    How can a risk-averse surrender number be higher than an e.v.-maximizing one?

    Don

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Hi-Lo surrender for 8,8 vs. T, in a DD game with DAS is +4.

    Don

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Yeah, basically a counter shouldn't split 88vT. It's a reverse index. So, you're stuck with a crap hand with two removed eights.
    Im out of town. Can someone look up Wongs Prof BJ Hi Lo tables starting at about page 250 or Halves tables starting about page 275. H17 DAS game with LSR or ESI0, tend to split 88 v 10 at about -3 or worse (lousier the count the better) and I think I’ve done pretty well with it.

    Edit
    Make that Surrender tables I think around page 92 or so - should show split if 8m not mistaken.
    Last edited by Freightman; 01-10-2022 at 11:00 PM.

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    How can a risk-averse surrender number be higher than an e.v.-maximizing one?

    Don
    Hi Don. I was looking at the charts showing the change in EV by the true count, and the indexes are close to identical. The sims where the index was called as 0 were just a hair less than the sims where the index was called as +1, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that the indexes came out statistically the same. I used the "Standard" level of Speed/Accuracy in the CVData sims.

  13. #26
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    CVData index charts are plotted by EV whether of not RA is used. Gives me an idea though that an adjusted chart could be developed. It would be a bit misleading as RA isn't really plotted by EV. But, would be interesting.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Index for Surrender 17 vs. Ace in a H17 game?
    By PinkChip in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2019, 02:20 AM
  2. CVData surrender index gen
    By KronikBuddha in forum Software
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-09-2014, 02:49 PM
  3. withheld: Hi-Lo index for Casino Surrender?
    By withheld in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2012, 06:25 AM
  4. 14 v T surrender index?
    By bjarg in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-01-2012, 08:09 AM
  5. Chris: Surrender Index Q for Don
    By Chris in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-16-2003, 08:47 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.