BJ House Edge in various conditions

[James989]

With CAC2 + 52 indices, 50% pen, CCE, peek on ACE but not on TEN, I obtained a House Edge (HE) of 0.583%. Then, given that against a ten, everything
is lost if the dealer gets BJ, I removed the doubling indices vs. T and splitting indices vs. T (88vT). With those changes, the HE was 0.668%.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

You mentioned that "With CAC2 + 52 indices, 50% pen, CCE, peek on ACE but not on TEN, I obtained a House Edge (HE) of 0.583%."

Is your CAC2 indices(for hands against TEN) that used in above simulation still the original indices for full PEEK game ? Or you have re-generated new indices(NO peek on TEN) for hands against TEN and used in above sim ? Your CAC2 looks like a strong system.

For example :-


Full Peek, 11 vs T, the indice is -6
Peek on Ace but no peek on Ten, 11 vs T, the indice is +5(re-generated).


So you used index + 5 in above sim ?

[Cacarulo]

You mentioned that "With CAC2 + 52 indices, 50% pen, CCE, peek on ACE but not on TEN, I obtained a House Edge (HE) of 0.583%."

Is your CAC2 indices(for hands against TEN) that used in above simulation still the original indices for full PEEK game ? Or you have re-generated new indices(NO peek on TEN) for hands against TEN and used in above sim ? Your CAC2 looks like a strong system.

For example :-


Full Peek, 11 vs T, the indice is -6
Peek on Ace but no peek on Ten, 11 vs T, the indice is +5(re-generated).


So you used index + 5 in above sim ?

The 0.583% house advantage corresponds to a "full peek" game with American rules. In the other case (0.668%),
and only when the dealer has a ten, I used the basic strategy of a European game, which consists of "not doubling down and not splitting 8s".
For a third option, I used the European index for 11vT, which for CAC2 is +4 instead of -7. In this case, I obtained a house advantage of 0.663%.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

[James989]

The 0.583% house advantage corresponds to a "full peek" game with American rules. In the other case (0.668%),
and only when the dealer has a ten, I used the basic strategy of a European game, which consists of "not doubling down and not splitting 8s".
For a third option, I used the European index for 11vT, which for CAC2 is +4 instead of -7. In this case, I obtained a house advantage of 0.663%.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

Thank you very much !

Next task is to use the perfect strategy to simulate. I think this will be difficult.

[Cacarulo]

Thank you very much !

Next task is to use the perfect strategy to simulate. I think this will be difficult.

I don't understand what you mean by the perfect strategy, which would have nothing to do with Hi-Opt II or with CAC2.
Which, of course, would be impossible to simulate.

Sincerely,
Cac

[James989]

I don't understand what you mean by the perfect strategy, which would have nothing to do with Hi-Opt II or with CAC2.
Which, of course, would be impossible to simulate.

Sincerely,
Cac

My idea, just before any playing decision, use combinations analyzer to calculate the best strategy . . . repeat for billions of hands/shoes.

[aceside]

My idea, just before any playing decision, use combinations analyzer to calculate the best strategy . . . repeat for billions of hands/shoes.

I’ve researched the perfect-insurance play for an 8-deck shoe.

[aceside]

I have also sim this with CVDATA, Flat Bet, Hi-Opt 2 Counting Strategy(Full Index), and the HE = -0.588%, which I think is incorrect.

Can you please use CVDATA to verify my results ? Please note that the rule is Peek on Ace, so you have to modify the index for hands vs T.

We have researched this part. The conclusion is that compute-perfect strategy can only improve the player EV about 0.1%. Why does Hi-Opt II improve it about 0.12%? Is this number correct?