Is it worth?!, help for a newbie (europe)

[Gronbog]

This is a case where having access to the graph showing the relative value of each play across a range of true counts is very enlightening.

https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/shop...t_type=product

For the ES10 ENHC case you can clearly see that the index (-6) is a decision between hitting and surrendering and that there is no index for splitting at all.
For the ES10 Hole card or OBO case, the decision is between surrendering and splitting, with splitting being preferred over hitting which is why the index is higher (-1)

I don't have any data for OBBO either, but clearly the value of splitting will be higher than for ENHC and lower than for hole card or OBO. If hitting dominates splitting, then the index will be the same as for ENHC (-6). Otherwise, I agree with Cac that it will be between -6 and -1.

[Softhony]

This is a case where having access to the graph showing the relative value of each play across a range of true counts is very enlightening.

https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/shop...t_type=product

For the ES10 ENHC case you can clearly see that the index (-6) is a decision between hitting and surrendering and that there is no index for splitting at all.
For the ES10 Hole card or OBO case, the decision is between surrendering and splitting, with splitting being preferred over hitting which is why the index is higher (-1)

I don't have any data for OBBO either, but clearly the value of splitting will be higher than for ENHC and lower than for hole card or OBO. If hitting dominates splitting, then the index will be the same as for ENHC (-6). Otherwise, I agree with Cac that it will be between -6 and -1.

Thank you very much Dave and Cac for taking the time to answer these questions, after all these clarifying answers I have a better vision of what the optimal indices would be for this very exotic rule.

Could we perhaps have the opportunity to have a visual guide in the store to be able to purchase it in the future, if it is in your plans, with ES10 for OBBO or perhaps OBO? If so, I would be the first interested in purchasing it.

On the other hand, I have the last doubt, in table 51.1 the pair of 7.7 vs T indicates that it is -2 and since it is different from 14 vs T, could it be that the pair of 7.7 is greater than -2? Maybe I should consider it as any 14?

I hope I am not so impertinent with my constant questions and I thank you in advance for your answers.

sincerely

Anthony Davalos

[Cacarulo]

Thank you very much Dave and Cac for taking the time to answer these questions, after all these clarifying answers I have a better vision of what the optimal indices would be for this very exotic rule.

Could we perhaps have the opportunity to have a visual guide in the store to be able to purchase it in the future, if it is in your plans, with ES10 for OBBO or perhaps OBO? If so, I would be the first interested in purchasing it.

On the other hand, I have the last doubt, in table 51.1 the pair of 7.7 vs T indicates that it is -2 and since it is different from 14 vs T, could it be that the pair of 7.7 is greater than -2? Maybe I should consider it as any 14?

I hope I am not so impertinent with my constant questions and I thank you in advance for your answers.

sincerely

Anthony Davalos

I don't understand the question well, 77 vs T is different from the case of 88 vs T since in the first one splitting is not a viable option. 77 vs T is a decision between hitting and surrender.
If you have a hand with 77 vs T, you use -2, and if you have 14 vs T, you use zero or the index listed in table 51.1, which I don't have at the moment.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Gronbog]

I think he wants an OBBO index for surrendering 7,7 vs T.

Once again referring to my Visual Guide to Index Play, even in a hole card (or OBO) game, there is no index for splitting 7,7 vs T. As Cac says, the decision is between hitting and surrendering. This is also true for ENHC (at the other extreme) and so it must also be true for OBBO (in the middle). Therefore the index for surrendering 7,7 vs T with OBBO will be the same as for ENHC, which is -2. Similarly for 14 vs T, the OBBO index for surrendering is the same as ENHC and is 0 (Table 51.1).

In general, for all plays for which the decision does not involve splitting or doubling, the surrender index for OBBO will be the same as for ENHC.

Could we perhaps have the opportunity to have a visual guide in the store to be able to purchase it in the future, if it is in your plans, with ES10 for OBBO or perhaps OBO? If so, I would be the first interested in purchasing it.

Thanks for your interest. The first thing to point out is that OBO is the same as North American hole card game, so all of the Visual Guides currently on offer are applicable to OBO. As for OBBO, there currently no plans. There would need to be significant demand before I could persuade Anthony Curtis to agree to offer it. Unfortunately the demand for the current offerings has not been all that high to date.

[k_c]

I think he wants an OBBO index for surrendering 7,7 vs T.

Once again referring to my Visual Guide to Index Play, even in a hole card (or OBO) game, there is no index for splitting 7,7 vs T. As Cac says, the decision is between hitting and surrendering. This is also true for ENHC (at the other extreme) and so it must also be true for OBBO (in the middle). Therefore the index for surrendering 7,7 vs T with OBBO will be the same as for ENHC, which is -2. Similarly for 14 vs T, the OBBO index for surrendering is the same as ENHC and is 0 (Table 51.1).

In general, for all plays for which the decision does not involve splitting or doubling, the surrender index for OBBO will be the same as for ENHC.


Thanks for your interest. The first thing to point out is that OBO is the same as North American hole card game, so all of the Visual Guides currently on offer are applicable to OBO. As for OBBO, there currently no plans. There would need to be significant demand before I could persuade Anthony Curtis to agree to offer it. Unfortunately the demand for the current offerings has not been all that high to date.

I originally included a computation for OBBO in my CA. I deleted it. I was unsure of its implementation.

As I understand it there are 2 basic implementations. Differences in bets at risk to dealer BJ occur on split hands.
In each all busted bets are at risk:

1. Busted bets + 1 - Busted hands plus one addtional bet are at risk. Unbusted doubles are not at risk. For splits any unbusted additional hands beyond the first are not at risk.

2. OBBO - Busted bets plus one additional bet per each split hand are at risk. Unbusted doubles are not at risk.

From what I understand, Busted Bets + 1 is the most common.

k_c

[davethebuilder]

BB+1 means the loss of all busted bets plus one more original bet per box and is the better rule for the player.

There are a few variations of OBBO and I refer you to MGP's Help File.

Australian OBBO: This is how Original and Busted bets is played in Australia. In this case 1 bet from each hand is collected after a split if the hand has not busted regardless of whether or not the hand was doubled post-split. Note that the dealer in Australia does not take a hole card.

Literal OBBO: Original Bets and Busted Bets Only. This used the literal interpretation of the rule although finding the game played this way is difficult. In this case the very first hand in a set of splits is considered to be the original bet so if it busts, no other bets are collected. If it is not busted and doubled or not, only one bet is collected.

[Gronbog]

BB+1 means the loss of all busted bets plus one more original bet per box and is the better rule for the player.

I assume if all bets are busted then there is no "+1" bet to take.

[davethebuilder]

Correct.

[Softhony]

En general, para todas las jugadas en las que la decisión no implique dividir o duplicar, el índice de rendición para OBBO será el mismo que para ENHC.

Thank you all very much for all your answers, they have been very enlightening to me, especially this last one, thank you very much for taking the time to respond.


Sincerely.


Anthony Davalos

[Softhony]

Dear ES of the ENHC t. 51.1 there are two indices: 11 vs T at +11d and the AA vs -7p, do we have to surrender the indices or do we have to do what the letters say? According to "A quick trip across the pond There are precious few studies" by THLCCS in the final paragraph in the special note I understand that you have to do what the letters say (doubledown or split).

If I use ES from HC with No Peek or OBO, would I have to consider that pair of indexes? And if so, would they be different for OBBO since it involves doubledown or split?

PS: Excuse my Google Translate English

Greetings,

Anthony Davalos

[Gronbog]

In that chart (Table 51.1), all of the indices are for early surrender except the two you mentioned. There should be a statement saying this at the bottom of the chart, but it was missing in the original printing. It should have been added for later printings.

Can I ask when you purchased your copy of the book?

The indices for 11 vs T and A,A vs T are for doubling and splitting as indicated. These indices are for ENHC and the indices for OBBO would he different. There are no surrender indices for these hands.

[Softhony]

Can I ask when you purchased your copy of the book?

Dear Dave, I was looking forward to it since it was announced, so as soon as it came out on Kindle I bought it, on March 3, well I spent a couple of days.

Sincerely,

Anthony Davalos

[Gronbog]

OK. So you may have a copy which is missing the clarification at the end of Table 51.1. Apologies for that!