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
So, you’re at 0, Cac is at 1.0 and I’m at 2.0 for RA.
Go ahead and run a sim at 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 and report back as to %EV captured at respective TC’s. Believe Wong had a truncated value of 1.0 for strike point. Though not interested, I am curious.
I believe I remarked on other components of the play of relevance to newer players.
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.
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
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.
Bookmarks