Effect of Removal, Sims with a Modified Shoe

[Overkill]

I've been reading with interest Don's "Blackjack Attack 3" (p. 496, for example) about composition-dependent basic strategy, total-dependent basic strategy, and effect of removal (EOR).

1) Is composition-dependent basic strategy referred to as "perfect play" or "perfect strategy?"

2) I'm having a hard time understanding the usefulness of these intricate composition-dependent charts. We know a player cannot use the charts (or a computer) in a casino. In what type of scenario would a player consult these charts? Online play? Surely they are not meant to be memorized?

3) Regarding Effect of Removal (EOR): Same question about practicality: how are the very detailed EOR charts (calculated to a ten-thousandth of a percent) useful in a 'brick and mortar' casino?

4) Regarding simming with MODIFIED shoes (shoes that do not contain all of the cards that they normally would), consider the following admittedly unrealistic example:

2 deck game for 1 player. Please temporarily suspend your disbelief in card-clumping.
I run a Real Shuffle (non-random) sim and modified shoe with the following cards removed:
2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4

Of course, there will be fewer rounds due to 95 cards being in the shoe rather than 104 in the shoe.

My primary question: Will the sim results of using a modified shoe exactly match the results I would get in a casino when only betting after round 1 of those non-modified rare shoes that used up in round 1 those exact same cards that are missing in the simmed, modified shoe ?

Clear as mud?

Stated a different way, using the specifics of the cards mentioned above:
**Will the long-term E.V. for this modified-shoe player mentioned above be similar to the long-term E.V. of a player who plays with full shoes (104 cards) and Wongs in only after Round 1 (and plays the entire rest of the shoe) of only those extremely rare shoes in which, after the first round of play, the same cards (2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4) and no others (except the burn card ) are in the discard rack?**

So, my question involves the effect on E.V. of using a modified shoe that is missing 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 versus calculating E.V. for only and all of those hands after Round 1 of those non-modified shoes that used up only 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 in Round 1 BUT retains those cards (2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4) for the shuffle (and Round 1).

[aceside]

Let me give an example to answer all your questions. Spanish 21 is a game that uses a blackjack shoe but omits all 10 cards. Although these two games have slightly different rules, we can just neglect them and largely treat them as the same thing. As you know, basic strategies for these two games are very different. I played Spanish 21 without knowing these details for a year but came out even.

[Ole]

Some comments for Overkill:

1.) composition-dependent strategy is the basic strategy perfected for playing a particular hand composition.

2.) actually, these are easily memorized as one both practices and learns the logic behind them.

3.) you don't memorize the EoRs; you use them to develop new counting systems. The EoR tables in BJA3 were critical to developing and validating my own novel counting systems. They'll also help you see which plays are most affected by certain counts.

4.) you are already at a running count of +9, for any standard level 1 system. That's a True 8 in double-deck, so you should already be betting the max with the largest number of hands in the next round. You'll trade off wins with the dealer and come out ahead with your blackjacks and double downs.

There is barely one more playable deck left after that, so your long term EV is just to ensure you manage your hands and you're Kelly betting efficiently.


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Ole]

That's a True 8 in double-deck, so you should already be betting the max

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

rather, it is a high True 4, almost True 5, and your should increase your # of hands and start betting approaching the max.

Remember kids, DON'T TEXT AND DRIVE.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[DSchles]

you are already at a running count of +9, for any standard level 1 system. That's a True 8 in double-deck,

Actually, true of just under 5, so 4, floored.

Don

[Ole]

Already with you, Don (see above).

So, now I know: I can manage simple division while chatting up the wait-staff on the casino floor, but I can't evidently divided 9 by 1.8 while stuck in rush-hour traffic. Next time I'll let Shawnee drive.



Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[DSchles]

Already with you, Don (see above).

So, now I know: I can manage simple division while chatting up the wait-staff on the casino floor, but I can't evidently divided 9 by 1.8 while stuck in rush-hour traffic. Next time I'll let Shawnee drive.



Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

But I don't have much excuse for missing your follow-up post. Absolutely missed it as I was responding to the first post. Sorry.

Don

[Overkill]

Thanks for the replies thus far. (And, Don, for what it's worth, and it's none of my business, but you seem quite hard on yourself whenever you make an error. I see myself in you.).

I see nobody has yet tackled my main question in the original post about simming. I basically want to know if can use the results of a billion hand sim of a modified shoe to generalize to the EV I would have (if I knew how to sim it) if I continuously played, for a billion hands using an unmodified shoe, all rounds except round 1 of only the extremely rare shoe in which 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 (and no other cards) comprised round 1.

I realize how a card counter would address this question. But I am wanting to see if I can simply trust the results of what the modified shoe is giving me to provide me with the unmodified shoe outcome. If I can, there is no need to count. But I'd rather not start a debate about why I don't count cards. Instead, could someone answer the question please?

[aceside]

I responded to your question to connect with you but unexpectedly received three no helpful comments. I really don't understand your question, even though I read it several times. I will just pass this.

[k_c]

Thanks for the replies thus far. (And, Don, for what it's worth, and it's none of my business, but you seem quite hard on yourself whenever you make an error. I see myself in you.).

I see nobody has yet tackled my main question in the original post about simming. I basically want to know if can use the results of a billion hand sim of a modified shoe to generalize to the EV I would have (if I knew how to sim it) if I continuously played, for a billion hands using an unmodified shoe, all rounds except round 1 of only the extremely rare shoe in which 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 (and no other cards) comprised round 1.

I realize how a card counter would address this question. But I am wanting to see if I can simply trust the results of what the modified shoe is giving me to provide me with the unmodified shoe outcome. If I can, there is no need to count. But I'd rather not start a debate about why I don't count cards. Instead, could someone answer the question please?

If I understand you correctly you want to know what results to expect from simming a 2 deck shoe modified by removing 2,3,3,4,4,4,4,4,4.

2 decks (modified as above)
Rules:
S17, 1 Split allowed all ranks, 1 card to split aces, NDAS, double any 2 cards, full peek, no surrender
Optimal EV: +2.255%
Total dependent basic strategy EV: +1.7141%

Sim should approximate these values, which are computed.

You would remove 2,3,3,4,4,4,4,4,4 from 2 deck shoe and sim away using appropriate rules and strategy.

Hope this helps.

k_c

[Overkill]

Thanks, k_c. for "getting in the trenches" with me.

And would we get the same results if those 9 cards were NOT permanently removed? Instead, our shoe would not at all be modified but rather always be 'missing' 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 after every Round 1 because they were all used up in Round 1 of every shoe and are therefore sitting in the discard rack after every Round 1. And we start betting at Round 2 and bet throughout the entire rest of the shoe.

We play about 140,000 of these rare shoes (so we will have over one billion rounds). And of course every shuffle involves all 104 cards as the shoe contains all 104 cards. And after every shuffle, each shoe unrealistically and miraculously begins with the same Round 1 in that all 9 of those cards, and no others, are played.

[DSchles]

That's what k_c answered. You'll have the edges he furnished. You're asking the same question again.

Don

[Overkill]

Thanks, Don.

k_c, maybe I am getting confused. In your most recent post, whenever you used the word "modify," each time were you meaning 'permanently modify' (due to an incomplete shoe)? Or at times when you used the word "modify,' did you mean 'temporarily modify' via removal due to the cards being 'played out?'

k_c and Don and others, thanks for your patience. I realize this is confusing. Perhaps if k_c replies I can soon explain my rationale for this convoluted question.

This is one of those times where verbal communication is so much more effective that writing. One of the things I am looking forward to in a collaborator is not having to rely solely on written communication.