Yes, your one-decimal indices are correct.
I got pretty much the same thing:
16vT: 0.0 (0,04) Generic
T6vT: 0.7 (0.66)
97vT: 0.0 (0,02)
88vT: 0.0 (0,03)
15vT: 3.9 (3,87) Generic
T5vT: 3.8 (3,79)
96vT: 3.8 (3,80)
87vT: 3.8 (3,80)
Sincerely,
Cac
Cac, see if you can lower T6 vs T and T5 vs T just one decimal point.
A hint: use the European more menacing ten, as I have.
Best
Zenfighter
Hand Hitting Standing Difference Rules
T,6 v T -0.570817 -0.576608 0.005791 ENHC
T,6 v T -0.534676 -0.540954 0.006278 USA
Thus, hitting T,6 v T is a little bit more favorable under US rules,
and therefore, the corresponding index to stand ( a.k.a. to do the opposite) is a little bit higher than the European one, as your figures correctly show.
Do we agree now?
Zenfighter
Hi ZF,
6D, ENHC/USA
16vT = 0.04 / 0.04 (Generic)
T6vT = 0.66 / 0.66
97vT = 0.02 / 0.02
88vT = 0.03 / 0.03
15vT = 3.84 / 3.87(Generic)
T5vT = 3.75 / 3.79
96vT = 3.77 / 3.80
87vT = 3.77 / 3.80
As you can see, there are NO changes in 16vT but in 15vT there is a tiny bit difference (insignificant) in favor of USA rules.
Perhaps the differences you are seeing have nothing to do with the rules but with the EORs. One thing I didn't mention in my post is that the EORs used in this analysis were calculated from a 6-deck pack and to 10 decimal places of precision. Something I discovered years ago is that precision in the number of decimal places and using the correct number of decks is much more accurate than using 1-deck EORs for everything.
Sincerely,
Cac
I don't believe there are any differences for hit/stand indexes for USA versus ENHC rules, only for doubling and splitting. ENHC takes all additional bets added after doubling or splitting in the case of dealer blackjack where USA does not.
Relationship: USA = ENHC + "rebate" for doubles/splits added bets
USA player gets his money back for doubles/splits. For hit/stand there is no difference.
Of course in actuality USA player never gets a chance to add extra bets for doubles/splits if dealer flips over blackjack and just takes initial bets but the principle is the same.
k_c
You are right, provided these indices are extracted with Monte-Carlo sims. We are talking here about algebraic derived ones with the employment of exact Eor’s for both rules. See last Cac’s post about this. Thus, if ENHC effects of removal differ from US ones for the hand in question, and I’m using a fixed formulae (a courtesy of “The Bish“,btw) to extract them, you can`t expect both indices to match perfectly, unless you think that I’m a sort of magician who can do that.
Sincerely
Zenfighter
OK.
These are the EVs you quoted which it looks like are from 6 decks:
T,6 v T -0.570817 -0.576608 0.005791 ENHC
T,6 v T -0.534676 -0.540954 0.006278 USA
It depends on how eor is computed. USA EV above is computed as conditional EV given dealer has checked for blackjack and doesn't have it. If instead unconditional EV is used then USA EVs would exactly match ENHC EVs. Unconditional EV means player non-BJ loses and player BJ pushes if dealer has blackjack.
Hopefully helpful,
k_c
The formulae to extract algebraic derived indices appeared first, as you surely know, in a paper called “An Algebraic Approximation to Optimal Blackjack Strategy.”
To approximate and being flawed at the same time looks like a contradictio in terrminis, because experience has taught us, that they tend to approach the Monte Carlo derived ones, quite fairly.
Question: Why this paper is not for sale anymore?
Answer: Because a few RNG’s computer wizards appeared on the scene,
Karel and Norm among the best of them. End of the story.
“If you find something you dislike inside these indices, then go with the
Simulated ones.”
That’s not me Don, that`s “Stanford Wong” ????
Zenfighter
Bookmarks