ENHC surrender 88 vs 10 or A

[DSchles]

This is what's so funny about both your note to me and Cac's chart above it: You both act as if, in the second column, the person who hits or stands actually DID that, even if the dealer later has a natural. In the latter case, the person did NOT hit and he did NOT stand; it just looks as if he did, because he goes through the motions. To calculate the EVs, you do nothing different from the standard American game. If the dealer has a natural, you IGNORE what the player did with his hand.

Note to k_c: Your words are clear, but the notion simply doesn't describe anything relating to blackjack! The TIMING as to when the dealer reveals his hole card cannot possibly change ANY expectations, and certainly not that of LS. Yet again, SPEAKING the word "Surrender" is NOT surrendering. You don't get to surrender until the dealer has seen his hole card. And thinking that it changes the surrender EV depending on whether the dealer sees his hole card at 7:30:25 or 7:30:26 is just plain silly.

Game 1: Don heads-up against the dealer in Las Vegas. I get 16 vs. T and, while the dealer is sliding his ten into the little camera to read the hole card, I yell out "Surrender." The dealer ignores me, sees an Ace underneath, and says, "No can do," and he takes my full bet.

Game 2: K_c heads up against the dealer in the good ol' A.C. days: You get 16 vs. T and yell out "Surrender." The dealer ignores you, slides a card out of the shoe, flips the Ace, and says: "No can do," and he takes your full bet.

If you somehow see ANY MATHEMATICAL DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in these two scenarios, then you simply have spent too much time analyzing blackjack and not enough time playing it.

Don

[k_c]

This is what's so funny about both your note to me and Cac's chart above it: You both act as if, in the second column, the person who hits or stands actually DID that, even if the dealer later has a natural. In the latter case, the person did NOT hit and he did NOT stand; it just looks as if he did, because he goes through the motions. To calculate the EVs, you do nothing different from the standard American game. If the dealer has a natural, you IGNORE what the player did with his hand.

Note to k_c: Your words are clear, but the notion simply doesn't describe anything relating to blackjack! The TIMING as to when the dealer reveals his hole card cannot possibly change ANY expectations, and certainly not that of LS. Yet again, SPEAKING the word "Surrender" is NOT surrendering. You don't get to surrender until the dealer has seen his hole card. And thinking that it changes the surrender EV depending on whether the dealer sees his hole card at 7:30:25 or 7:30:26 is just plain silly.

Game 1: Don heads-up against the dealer in Las Vegas. I get 16 vs. T and, while the dealer is sliding his ten into the little camera to read the hole card, I yell out "Surrender." The dealer ignores me, sees an Ace underneath, and says, "No can do," and he takes my full bet.

Game 2: K_c heads up against the dealer in the good ol' A.C. days: You get 16 vs. T and yell out "Surrender." The dealer ignores you, slides a card out of the shoe, flips the Ace, and says: "No can do," and he takes your full bet.

If you somehow see ANY MATHEMATICAL DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in these two scenarios, then you simply have spent too much time analyzing blackjack and not enough time playing it.

Don

I give up. No big deal.

k_c

[DSchles]

Here we must use the UNCONDITIONAL value and by doing this we will correctly get the value of "+2

Get the CONDITIONAL value for the American game, assuming the dealer has checked and doesn't have a natural. What's that? +2. Oh!!

Don

[Cacarulo]

Get the CONDITIONAL value for the American game, assuming the dealer has checked and doesn't have a natural. What's that? +2. Oh!!

Don

Well, that's because in this case we're comparing surrender vs. hitting. Hitting does not lose extra bets (like splitting or doubling). On the other hand, the idea is to solve the problem by applying the European rules, not the American ones, and I think that is solved. But I understand that the explanation is complicated.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Gronbog]

The basic strategy for hitting vs stand vs surrender does not change between ENHC and PEEK games because, in the ENHC game, at the precise moment any of those decisions is made, the EV of the player's bet for any of those actions is subject to the identical "penalty" for the case where the dealer has a natural as compared to that exact moment on a hole card game where it is already known that there is no natural. As Cac says, since only one bet is in play, the change is identical and relative for all of those actions. This is also the reason why any indices between these decisions do not change. And, of course, the very reason we don't double or split (except A,A vs T) is because adding the extra unit to our bet increases the "penalty" for the case of a dealer natural for those decisions.

[k_c]

The basic strategy for hitting vs stand vs surrender does not change between ENHC and PEEK games because, in the ENHC game, at the precise moment any of those decisions is made, the EV of the player's bet for any of those actions is subject to the identical "penalty" for the case where the dealer has a natural as compared to that exact moment on a hole card game where it is already known that there is no natural. As Cac says, since only one bet is in play, the change is identical and relative for all of those actions. This is also the reason why any indices between these decisions do not change. And, of course, the very reason we don't double or split (except A,A vs T) is because adding the extra unit to our bet increases the "penalty" for the case of a dealer natural for those decisions.

And the EV that does not change between peek and no peek for stand, hit, and LS is ..... the unconditional EV.
uncond double EV changes for ENHC by -(prob dealer BJ). In peek game 1 unit is at risk to dealer BJ; in ENHC 2 units.
uncond split EV also changes but no description here.

Suppose you're playing ENHC. You have 2-card hand versus T. You have option of late surrender. You take that option. Dealer puts some kind of lammer on your hand to indicate late surrender. Dealer does not check hole card and deals from full 6 card deck absent your 2 cards and his up card. At end of deal 285 out of 309 hands dealer will take half your bet. 24 out of 309 hands dealer will take your full bet. You can complain and say surrender means I lose half my bet because surrender is always -50% because I always display it that way in my data. Dealer says, "tough luck, those are the rules."

Unconditional EV doesn't care when dealer checks for blackjack.

Probably more than I should say.

k_c

[Norm]

But, you didn't surrender. You just indicated a desire to, indicated by a lammer. And, you would have lost a full bet anyhow. The math is the same as US no peek; which is why I get the correct indices using -.5 EV.

Basically, I think we get the same end result -- it's just that you are putting the numbers in different slots. But, had the surrender actually taken place, the EV would have been -.5 as a matter of definition.

[k_c]

But, you didn't surrender. You just indicated a desire to, indicated by a lammer. And, you would have lost a full bet anyhow. The math is the same as US no peek; which is why I get the correct indices using -.5 EV.

Basically, I think we get the same end result -- it's just that you are putting the numbers in different slots. But, had the surrender actually taken place, the EV would have been -.5 as a matter of definition.

For a sim, EV for every individual decision to surrender is -.5, which would be included in the aggregate, yes. What's done with aggregate is up to simmer.

Needed is apples to apples rather than apples to oranges comparisons.
Either uncond EV to uncond EV or cond EV to cond EV; no mixing even if you have state of art blender.

k_c

[Gramazeka]

My approximate indices for Hi-Lo are now:

ES 77vT >= -1.4

Sincerely,
Cac

Ok , composite ?. 14 vs T what you have ? ES. I have -0.7

[Cacarulo]

Ok , composite ?. 14 vs T what you have ? ES. I have -0.7

Hi Grama!

For 6D, ENHC and ES I get -0.6 and for LS +3.1.

Sincerely,
Cac