Surrender Question

[DSchles]

Did you mean 17 v T as a reverse index?

No.

Don

[Cacarulo]

No.

Don

No? Does that mean he didn't mean that? Or does it mean that 17vT is not reverse?

Cac

[DSchles]

No? Does that mean he didn't mean that? Or does it mean that 17vT is not reverse?

Cac

It means, no, he didn't mean 17 vs. T as a reverse index. 17 vs. A is the reverse index.

Don

[Cacarulo]

It means, no, he didn't mean 17 vs. T as a reverse index. 17 vs. A is the reverse index.

Don

Well, I think it's the other way around. That's why I asked GB if there wasn't a typo.
In 17vT, as the TC increases the standing EV decreases, whereas in 17vA, as the TC increases the standing EV also increases. That means 17vT is the reverse.

Sincerely,
Cac

[G Man]

Well, I think it's the other way around. That's why I asked GB if there wasn't a typo.
In 17vT, as the TC increases the standing EV decreases, whereas in 17vA, as the TC increases the standing EV also increases. That means 17vT is the reverse.

Sincerely,
Cac

Nope.
You use a reverse index for Surrender with 17 vs A if the TC is less than +1. Once you know the dealer doesn't have BJ, you better play it in positive counts (over +1) than Surrendering.
For 17 vs 10 it's not the same. Only at a certain point (+13) it is correct to Surrender.

I suspect your thinking is "contaminated" by the European game my friend :-)

[Cacarulo]

Nope.
You use a reverse index for Surrender with 17 vs A if the TC is less than +1. Once you know the dealer doesn't have BJ, you better play it in positive counts (over +1) than Surrendering.
For 17 vs 10 it's not the same. Only at a certain point (+13) it is correct to Surrender.

I suspect your thinking is "contaminated" by the European game my friend :-)

I think we use the index in the same way. That's not the point. If we look at the index from the point of view of standing, the reverse index would be 17vT.
Why do we usually say that an index is reverse? Because as the TC increases the advantage in a certain play decreases. Plays such as 88vT or 88v9 are reverse (for splitting) because as the TC increases the expected value of splitting decreases.
In the case of surrender the expected value does not change but the expected value of standing does. At least that's how I understand it.

Sincerely,
Cac

[G Man]

The common knowledge regarding the use of index is what Wong explained in Pro BJ.

Number: Stand (or double or split) at a count per deck equal to or greater than the number, hit (or do not split) at a count per deck less than the number.
Surrender number: Surrender if the count per deck equals or exceeds the number, do not surrender if the count per deck is less than the number.


My understanding of a "reverse index" is when you do apply the decision "the other way". For Surrender, you do not surrender at or above the index (like explained by Wong) but only if the count per deck is less than the index.

What you're saying is that the basic strategy calls for Standing 17 vs 10 BUT that there's a reverse index at +13, the point where you would not stand anymore but surrender. This is not a reverse index, this is simply the point where the surrender index kicks in. If surrender isn't offer, you would not do anything other than standing.

[Cacarulo]

The common knowledge regarding the use of index is what Wong explained in Pro BJ.

Number: Stand (or double or split) at a count per deck equal to or greater than the number, hit (or do not split) at a count per deck less than the number.
Surrender number: Surrender if the count per deck equals or exceeds the number, do not surrender if the count per deck is less than the number.


My understanding of a "reverse index" is when you do apply the decision "the other way". For Surrender, you do not surrender at or above the index (like explained by Wong) but only if the count per deck is less than the index.

What you're saying is that the basic strategy calls for Standing 17 vs 10 BUT that there's a reverse index at +13, the point where you would not stand anymore but surrender. This is not a reverse index, this is simply the point where the surrender index kicks in. If surrender isn't offer, you would not do anything other than standing.

You are right, it is clear that my understanding was too far-fetched, being something simpler to see. Thanks for the clarification.

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

At least that's how I understand it.

And while you're entitled to understand it that way, it isn't the way the rest of us define "reverse index." For all indices, players learn, "If the TC is greater than or equal to the index, insure, surrender, split, double, or stand."
So, if, all of a sudden, for any given play, we're now making the departure when we're BELOW the index, instead of above it, that is the definition of "reverse index."

No sense debating this.

Don

[Cacarulo]

And while you're entitled to understand it that way, it isn't the way the rest of us define "reverse index." For all indices, players learn, "If the TC is greater than or equal to the index, insure, surrender, split, double, or stand."
So, if, all of a sudden, for any given play, we're now making the departure when we're BELOW the index, instead of above it, that is the definition of "reverse index."

No sense debating this.

Don

Yes, you're right. I made it more complicated than it was.

Sincerely,
Cac

[aceside]

I think we use the index in the same way. That's not the point. If we look at the index from the point of view of standing, the reverse index would be 17vT.
Why do we usually say that an index is reverse? Because as the TC increases the advantage in a certain play decreases. Plays such as 88vT or 88v9 are reverse (for splitting) because as the TC increases the expected value of splitting decreases.
In the case of surrender the expected value does not change but the expected value of standing does. At least that's how I understand it.


Sincerely,
Cac

Regarding this, Eliot advertised a lot of his split-for-less advantage plays, but I really haven’t got his idea of profiting from these situations.