See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 77

Thread: ENHC surrender 88 vs 10 or A

  1. #53
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    CVData does get -1 for ES and +2 for LS. It assumes Surrender is -.5 in both cases.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  2. #54


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    CVData does get -1 for ES and +2 for LS. It assumes Surrender is -.5 in both cases.
    But then if surrender remains constant hitting should change. We agree that surrender is being compared against hitting. Otherwise the index would be "-1".
    Something has to change, that's the kid of the question.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  3. #55
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Absolutely
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  4. #56


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    Absolutely
    And what makes hitting different in the same game (ENHC) if one offers LS and the other ES? That shouldn't affect the expected value of hitting.

    Cac

  5. #57
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    That's why I asked: "How is ENHC LS generally handled?" I can't remember the last time I played that game.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  6. #58


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    That's why I asked: "How is ENHC LS generally handled?" I can't remember the last time I played that game.
    That is a good question. I know people who play in Europe and they tell me that LS (as it is known in the USA) with ENHC does not exist. Maybe in Asia but I don't know.

    Cac

  7. #59
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    ES10 commonly includes LS for ace up.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  8. #60


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Cacarulo View Post
    This is what I get now for ENHC:

    Code:
    Standing  =  -56.65807149255014% |  -56.65807149255014%
    Hitting   =  -22.12141526286563% |  -22.12141526286563%
    Doubling  =  -58.83294803078072% |  -58.83294803078072%
    Surrender =  -50.00000000000000% |  -53.06122448979592%
    
    Note that the conditional values can be used for ES and the unconditional values for LS.
    Do we agree now?

    Sincerely,
    Cac
    If your left column is ES and right column is LS we completely agree.
    I take your word that conditional values can be used for ES but I only use unconditional.

    Note to Don:

    The -53.06% value for LS represents the value of the hand before dealer checks for blackjack. Whenever dealer has determined he does not have blackjack this extra information changes the (LS) EV to -50%. I think that in general check happens at end of hand, not beginning like in full peek so it's not out of line to say EV for LS is -53.06% because that's what it is at the time decision to surrender is made.

    k_c
    Last edited by k_c; 03-17-2023 at 02:42 PM.

  9. #61


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    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

  10. #62


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

  11. #63


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

  12. #64


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

  13. #65


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    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.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. early surrender vs 10, late surrender vs A,house edge is?
    By kk7778 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-05-2020, 01:53 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-30-2017, 04:24 PM
  3. Eup: ENHC
    By Eup in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 11:53 PM
  4. superdupont: CV and ENHC
    By superdupont in forum Computing for Counters
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 09:40 AM

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.