# Thread: H17 Soft 19 vs 6

1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Norm
Zero sounds good to me. As for cover, it's arguable wither it is good or bad for cover.
Yes, I agree. According to my calculations the RA index is between 0 and +1.

Sincerely,
Cac

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Freightman
The problem with these tables is that index 0.0 is the strike point with EV max of 0.1? It wasn’t to many years ago that A8 v 6 was a basic strategy stand. I would disagree that +1 is a risk averse double believing that the index should be closer to +3. +1 simply doesn’t win enough if the total EV if the play.

It should be pointed out to newer players that you will win fewer hands doubling this hand, that the additional dollars won is by having more money on the table - easy enough to graph out.

The double is definitely not for shoestring rolls, though waiting for +3 before doubling gives you a far higher percentage of the expected value. For myself, I’m happy enough from a cover perspective simply to stand - leaving the double for a “steam” situation. I have plenty of other tricks in my shoebox -oh wait - the shoebox is not for money
According to my calculations the RA index is between 0 and +1. BTW, I was checking PBJ ('94 edition), and the index that appears there for A8v6 (H17) is zero. Obviously it is the EM index.
For 6D, the optimal RA index (assuming an spread of 1:16) is close to +1. Optimal means that it maximizes the SCORE.

Sincerely,
Cac

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Cacarulo
According to my calculations the RA index is between 0 and +1. BTW, I was checking PBJ ('94 edition), and the index that appears there for A8v6 (H17) is zero. Obviously it is the EM index.
For 6D, the optimal RA index (assuming an spread of 1:16) is close to +1. Optimal means that it maximizes the SCORE.

Sincerely,
Cac
Seems to be a pretty narrow range between EV Max and Optimal RA - a new term for me. Are you saying that there is a difference between RA and Optimal RA. If so, then your comments make it more interesting to find out %EV won but True Count. My error though on strike point.

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Freightman
Seems to be a pretty narrow range between EV Max and Optimal RA - a new term for me. Are you saying that there is a difference between RA and Optimal RA. If so, then your comments make it more interesting to find out %EV won but True Count. My error though on strike point.
Not all plays are likely to be risk aversed. There are some in which the jump between EM (Ev Maximizing) and RA is noticeable, such as 10vT, and there are others that are not so noticeable. In Hi-Lo, 10vT, 8v5, 9v7, A8v5, A8v4 do change, while A8v6 remains unchanged.
With respect to the optimal RA index, it is the one that reduces the risk while maximizing the SCORE. In the A8v6 example, +3 will surely reduce risk, but you will not be maximizing SCORE.

Sincerely,
Cac

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by DK-Diggity
OK, I'm taking flack for the software and I want a second opinion.

When I use CVCX and select the strategy ( Wong, Basic High-Low, Full Indexes, DAS, Multi-deck, H17 ); the tables show soft 19 vs 6 has an index of +1.

When I change that to S17 the tables still show +1.

I've tried changing all kinds of options and the tables only show +1. I'm on v 6.0.160

These really hateful internet people are telling me it's -1 and flinging poop at me and really cramping my style, so what's what? Which way is up?

Sincerely,
The software drone diggity
Index EV Max S 17 ( +0.9), H 17 (-0.4)

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
My index is +1 for this hand, but there's a few other things I think of, such as (4) and (5) removed. For instance, if in a DD game, 1.6 decks remaining, the TC is between +1 and +2, but it's because of (2,3) removed and I haven't seen a single (4) or (5) come out of the deck yet, along with a surplus of {6-9}, I'm going to stand. If I haven't seen any (2) come out of the deck yet at the same 1.6 decks remaining but have seen lots of (4,5) removed to form that TC between +1 and +2, it becomes a no-brainer to double. I used a DD game for convenience of pointing out the scenario and not because of any availability of DD games around anymore.

The three key cards I list on the chart for A,8vs6 are (2) and (4,5), all within the {2-5} grouping, but on opposite sides of the fence in terms of whether the card helps you but hurts the dealer or helps the dealer but hurts you. In other words, TC+1 for betting purposes can be slightly different from TC+1 for playing purposes for this hand if you really want to get jiggy with it and put a microscope on it. I have it at +1 for both S17 and H17 also. For A,9vs6, I have +4 for S17 and +3 for H17. The index for S17 and H17 are one and the same on quite a few hands.

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Tarzan
I have it at +1 for both S17 and H17 also.
This is contrary to mathematics.

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Gramazeka
This is contrary to mathematics.
If I put the composition dependent indices for A,8vs6 S17 and H17 side by side, the differences are slight enough that if you made a Venn diagram of it, you'd have a 96% overlap. The differences are slight enough to be negligible. Any accurate means of index generation will show the same result. Please explain what you are referring to.

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Tarzan
If I put the composition dependent indices for A,8vs6 S17 and H17 side by side, the differences are slight enough that if you made a Venn diagram of it, you'd have a 96% overlap. The differences are slight enough to be negligible. Any accurate means of index generation will show the same result. Please explain what you are referring to.
I have a difference of 1.3 TC between these indexes, as you can see from my image. It's too much for them to be the same.

Page 3 of 3 First 123

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•