Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 29

Thread: H17 Soft 19 vs 6

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Dog Hand View Post
    21forme,

    Were you surprised, or were you floored? ????

    Dog Hand
    Doghand - I found her surprisingly well-rounded for a cashier. I would have expected her math education to be somewhat truncated.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    Doghand - I found her surprisingly well-rounded for a cashier. I would have expected her math education to be somewhat truncated.
    You’re implying she was a breast of fresh air

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Cacarulo View Post
    The index that maximizes the expected value is zero but you can use +1 as the risk aversion index which is preferable.

    Sincerely,
    Cac
    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

  4. #17
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,444
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    +3 is well above the RA index.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  5. #18


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    +3 is well above the RA index.
    I presume at least +2 and I did say “closer” to +3. Having said that, it’s one of those plays, I think, should be used with discretion if you are going to use it.

  6. #19
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,444
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Zero sounds good to me. As for cover, it's arguable wither it is good or bad for cover.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Zero sounds good to me. As for cover, it's arguable wither it is good or bad for cover.
    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.

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    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

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    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

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Cacarulo View Post
    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.

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    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

  12. #25
    Senior Member Gramazeka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    1,434


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DK-Diggity View Post
    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)
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)

  13. #26
    Senior Member Tarzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    1,013


    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Soft 18 vs. 2
    By Duc939 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-21-2022, 09:39 AM
  2. DD on Soft 21
    By gutshot in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 09-26-2016, 02:18 PM
  3. Soft 12
    By Rainmaker in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-13-2013, 06:19 AM
  4. GLKamper: Hit soft 17 by law?
    By GLKamper in forum Las Vegas Everything
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-08-2004, 01:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.