Looking for Complete Double-Deck Gain Table for Depth Charging using full indices

[Archimedes]

This is a question about "Depth Charging, as described by Arnold Snyder in Blackbelt in Blackjack.

On page 28 of Peter Griffin’s “Theory of Blackjack” is a table showing how much gain, in hundredths of a percentage point, is possible with a perfect counting strategy, both from betting variation and strategy variation (with insurance gain shown separately from non-insurance gain).


Arnold Snyder used that table to generate his “Complete Single-Deck Gain Table” on p.83 of “Blackbelt in Blackjack”, 1983 edition. (Although I think there are some errors in his numbers, and he rounds everything quite conservatively.). Snyder states on the top of p. 82 that “depth-charging is not a practical strategy in multi-deck games.” And then he goes on to provide an example for double-deck as to why it is not as good as single deck for depth charging.


But there is SOME strategy gain from depth changing in double-deck and shoe games, right? I can accept that shoe games would provide scant benefit, but what about double-deck? Exactly how much strategy gain is possible in double-deck would be nice to know, so that I can generate my own “Complete Double-Deck Gain Table.


Does anyone know of where I can obtain the equivalent of Peter Griffin’s p. 28 table for double-deck? I want to find, or create, a “Complete Double-Deck Gain Table”.


Thank you.

[G Man]

Use CVData

[moo321]

You can get CVData and run the numbers. But even if you were using some ridiculous count, like AOII and side-counting sevens, it's not worth your time. That strategy was designed for S17 DAS single deck games, and even then it was a bit silly. You can still get backed off "for counting cards" because they see you're winning and varying bets and assume.

A straight 1-2 spread, or spreading 1-4 on a shoe or something would probably be stronger with less variance.

Maybe you've got an advantage from something else? Something off the table?

[Archimedes]

I am just trying to see what games can be beaten without any bet spread at all, just flat betting. A good single deck game can be beaten this way with a strong system and full strategy indices. Can any double-deck games be beaten with flat betting? To see if this is possible, I would need the equivalent double-deck information that p.28 of Griffin gives for single-deck. A chart showing advantage as a function of depth for double-deck.

I see G Man and moo321 have both recommended getting CVData to figure this out. I may end up paying for that program eventually, as I know it would be valuable to test different count systems and betting strategies and depths of deal. But for now I'm just looking for the double-deck version of p.28 of Griffin. I don't see in the specs of CVData that the program is designed to calculate these general data. The information is independent of what system you are using, and just shows the maximum possible gains. Isn't there a source somewhere with this information already calculated?

[moo321]

CVData can be programmed to simulate depth charging. It's worth it for anyone playing blackjack seriously.

[Cacarulo]

I am just trying to see what games can be beaten without any bet spread at all, just flat betting. A good single deck game can be beaten this way with a strong system and full strategy indices. Can any double-deck games be beaten with flat betting? To see if this is possible, I would need the equivalent double-deck information that p.28 of Griffin gives for single-deck. A chart showing advantage as a function of depth for double-deck.

I see G Man and moo321 have both recommended getting CVData to figure this out. I may end up paying for that program eventually, as I know it would be valuable to test different count systems and betting strategies and depths of deal. But for now I'm just looking for the double-deck version of p.28 of Griffin. I don't see in the specs of CVData that the program is designed to calculate these general data. The information is independent of what system you are using, and just shows the maximum possible gains. Isn't there a source somewhere with this information already calculated?

Perhaps what you need are the complete tables of Effects Of Removals (EORs) but for 2D, which are similar to those for 1D. The only difference lies in the mean.
For this, I recommend that you look for the tables in BJA3, as they are the most accurate ones you will find. Furthermore, they were calculated with precision up to four decimal places instead of two.
With those tables in hand (loaded into a spreadsheet), you'll be able to recreate the methods used in TOB.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

I might add that the process is extremely tedious, and there a number of steps and formulas to invoke. In the end, you'll be disappointed, because you aren't going to gain an edge this way.

Don

[G Man]

Find a DD game S17 DAS LS dealt to 75% penetration.

PS. And keep it for you :-)

[Dog Hand]

Find a DD game S17 DAS LS dealt to 75% penetration.

PS. And keep it for you :-)

G Man,

I found it!

Unfortunately, the Copa Casino sank during Katrina in 2005.

:-(

Dog Hand

[G Man]

Don’t look that far…
;-)