Playing decisions for 1.5 pen double deck game

[name banned]

While playing a notched 1.5 pen double deck game, would it be correct to use .5 as the TC divisor for playing decisions in a round where the RC is greater than +1 after the cut card is dealt?

My assumption would be to assume the dealer's hole card is an A or T, so -1 to the RC then use the .5 divisor for TC.

Any thoughts?

[name banned]

Made an edit to the original post after realizing subtracting 1 to the RC would not be helpful for playing decisions if it drops the RC to 0 or lower

[Freightman]

You’re confusing the issue, so let’s simplify. You’re averaging 78 cards played plus additional cards when cut card comes out after round commences. 78 cards is subjective since actual cards to cut card will vary depending on hand pressure applied by dealer to decks when applying cut card.

Further, why are you assuming dealer hole card is a ten or ace. Actual probability off the top is about 41%. Also, you haven’t specified count system, so let’s assume hi lo. You should start with RC 0. Why would this information not be useful for playing decisions?

Now, for myself, I prefer to floor to decks remaining and then interpolate. It’s easy enough to figure out add on percentages to actual TC from this approach - also helps in fewer count errors.

[name banned]

Further, why are you assuming dealer hole card is a ten or ace. Actual probability off the top is about 41%. Also, you haven’t specified count system, so let’s assume hi lo.

Sorry, you were correct in assuming hi lo. I am assuming ten or ace because if I assume a low card as the hole card the count could be much higher than it actually is and now I am making improper decisions when I am max betting.

For example, say the RC is +6. 2 players at the table. Both players dealt TT. Dealer shows 5. RC is now +3. If I assume dealer's hole card is ten or ace, RC goes to +2 then TC to +4. If I assume dealer's hole card is a low card, RC goes to +4 then TC to +8. So, If I assumed the dealer's hole card was a low card, I would now be splitting my 10s while max betting.

You should start with RC 0. Why would this information not be useful for playing decisions?

If I subtract 1 from the RC and I apply this technique while the RC is 0, I would end up getting a -2 TC. In this case, now I am hitting/not surrendering in rounds that it would benefit me to stay/surrender.

[DSchles]

So, if I understand correctly, instead of counting all the cards you see and basing decisions accordingly, you want to guess what the dealer's hole card is and base your decisions on the guess? Doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Don

[name banned]

So, if I understand correctly, instead of counting all the cards you see and basing decisions accordingly, you want to guess what the dealer's hole card is and base your decisions on the guess? Doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

Don

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me in situations where the RC is <= 1. I struggle to find a situation where assuming the dealer hole card is a ten or ace would negatively affect me when the RC > 1 and cards dealt >= 78.

What have the long term pros done in these situations in the past? Assume nothing and keep the TC divisor at 1 since all cards in play haven't been accounted for? Disregard the hole card and make the divisor .5?

I hope to not come off rude. I am genuinely asking for a proof.

[DSchles]

If you have a half deck left, the TC divisor is .5. I have no understanding of how that interacts with "assuming" what the dealer's hole card is. You DON'T do that, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the TC divisor.

Don

[name banned]

If you have a half deck left, the TC divisor is .5. I have no understanding of how that interacts with "assuming" what the dealer's hole card is. You DON'T do that, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the TC divisor.

Don

So say we have 70 cards in the discard tray before a round commences, so TC divisor is currently 1 and you bet accordingly. The round commences and now more than 78 cards have been dealt, as well as the cut card. You are saying it is optimal to use .5 as the TC divisor for playing decisions now even though the dealer's hole card is unknown? I am not grasping the concept that it would be optimal to double the RC when a card in play is unknown.

I want to clarify that my assumption for the dealer's hole card in this discussion is not to use hole card play strategy. The assumption would lead only to HiLo index plays.

If someone would like to run a sim of my crazy idea, I have included code that might be able to be added to a simulator.

If cards dealt >= 78 and RC is > 1
RC = RC -1
TC = RC / 0.5

[Freightman]

So say we have 70 cards in the discard tray before a round commences, so TC divisor is currently 1 and you bet accordingly.

Seems to me I said - floor to decks remaining and then interpolate - solves your problem. Example 70 cards played RC=1. Divide by decks remaining and floored TC=1. Now, deal 2 cards to player, card up and. Card down for dealer. Now, 74 cards are played leaving 30 remaining. You get 99 v dealer 7 upcard. RC still equals 1. Divided by full decks remaining still equals TC1. Interpolate RC of 1 with .25 decks remaining. And looks pretty close to TC4. Split those 9’s. The index is there. Don’t consider dealers hole card unless you saw it.

If someone would like to run a sim of my crazy idea, I have included code that might be able to be added to a simulator.

Seems wasteful to sim a dumb idea.

Try to grasp the fact that you DONT count unknown cards - the dealers hole card is UNKNOWN.

[DSchles]

I am not grasping the concept that it would be optimal to double the RC when a card in play is unknown.

Yes, you're right; you have no understanding of the concept at all. Why would you fixate on a card in play that's unknown?? There are 26 other cards that are unknown! If you think that the dealer's hole card is different from those other 26, you really have to take a step back and learn a little more about the game.

Don

[name banned]

Yes, you're right; you have no understanding of the concept at all. Why would you fixate on a card in play that's unknown?? There are 26 other cards that are unknown! If you think that the dealer's hole card is different from those other 26, you really have to take a step back and learn a little more about the game.

Don

Okay I will scrap the idea that giving the unknown hole card a value after the divisor has changed from 1 (before cards dealt) to .5 (after cards dealt) where RC > 1 and any RC <= 1 would use 1 as the TC divisor could be more optimal than not giving the hole card a value and always using .5 as the TC divisor for playing decisions in a 1.5/2 pen 2d game.

Thank you Don and Freightman for your input. I know I have much more to learn and am grateful to be able to communicate with professionals.