ENHC surrender 88 vs 10 or A

[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