Using CVDATA to Sim Spanish 21

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

For Spanish, I wouldn't try to use composition dependent basic strategy. I would just use the 3 card strategy, 4 card strategy, etc.


To program this, go to the "Playing" tab. Then go to "Assemble Multi-Strategy." In the bottom left corner, go to where it says "Decision Factor" and click on "cards." Then put whatever strategy you want for each number of cards. You can use Shackleford's "Spanish 21-2 Card ReDBL" and so on. Just check the strategies before you run it, because I'm thinking there might have been an error in one of them.


If you're going to use an ace side-count, I wouldn't go with an ace-reckoned count. It would make more sense to use an ace neutral count. Although I can't think of any that don't count the 7, besides Hi Opt I. And Hi Opt I will be unbalanced with the tens removed. So, you might want to modify an existing count, like using Hi Opt II but not counting the 7, which makes it balanced and pretty powerful. In any case, Spanish is almost all shoe games in the US, so side-counting aces is going to be a chore.

Thanks for the info. I tried this and am only getting about a 0.03% decrease in house edge using this complex multi-strategy. If this is the actual case and I didn't screw anything up, it seems hardly worth it to learn all of this extra strategy. Wouldn't it make more sense to ignore it and simply generate indices and memorize those?

[Norm]

Yes, it generally makes sense to just use indices. However, yo should have gained more EV than that. There is a built-in SP21 multi-strategy in the Shackleford folder.

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

Yes, it generally makes sense to just use indices. However, yo should have gained more EV than that. There is a built-in SP21 multi-strategy in the Shackleford folder.

That multi-strategy is yielding a much worse house edge at about 0.7%. I looked into some of the strategies attached to it and they are incorrect.
One example is that the two-card strategy has a player 9 doubling against only a dealer 6.

[Norm]

What are you comparing against and what rules?

Just looked and this agrees with Shackleford's strategy. Also, he shows .76% for H17.

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

The house edge should be 0.42% with H17 Redouble. I am able to sim the game at about 0.46% but I don't have any composition-dependent strategies and I cannot redouble hard 12 vs. 7/8.

[Norm]

You are not going to get a decent edge without counting. And with counting, I personally wouldn't bother with all the strange plays. The more cards in the hand, the less often the hand will occur. Redouble 12v7 and 8 would be a tell to the casino. Also might decrease SCORE.

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

You are not going to get a decent edge without counting. And with counting, I personally wouldn't bother with all the strange plays. The more cards in the hand, the less often the hand will occur. Redouble 12v7 and 8 would be a tell to the casino. Also might decrease SCORE.

I am trying to reach the correct house edge of 0.42% to determine if I am simulating the playing strategy correctly or not. I am also simulating with counting.

I agree with you that redoubling 12 vs 7 and 8 is a bit of a tell and will certainly increase variance (and decrease SCORE) so I will not be doing that in the casino. I'm merely trying to recreate the same playing strategy that Shackleford did.

[moo321]

Thanks for the info. I tried this and am only getting about a 0.03% decrease in house edge using this complex multi-strategy. If this is the actual case and I didn't screw anything up, it seems hardly worth it to learn all of this extra strategy. Wouldn't it make more sense to ignore it and simply generate indices and memorize those?

Of course, you should use indexes. But the EV of hitting goes up with additional cards. So, you generally only use indexes with 2 card hands. You can generate 3 card indexes, but it's basically a waste of time besides a small handful, like 11 v. 10.


Using the correct multicard strategy should have shifted the house advantage more than a few hundredths of a percent. There's probably a mistake there.

[RatherNotGiveMyRealName]

Of course, you should use indexes. But the EV of hitting goes up with additional cards. So, you generally only use indexes with 2 card hands. You can generate 3 card indexes, but it's basically a waste of time besides a small handful, like 11 v. 10.


Using the correct multicard strategy should have shifted the house advantage more than a few hundredths of a percent. There's probably a mistake there.

So it seems to me that the best course of action is to ignore the composition-dependent and multi-card hands and stick to the 2-card hand indices. Is this a fair assessment? If so, what more would one want to do after learning Kat's Hi-Lo and memorizing indices?

[moo321]

Use indexes for 2 card hands, then use the 3,4,5,6 card strategies for multicard hands.

Then you would sim the game and figure out how much to bet at each count.

[Norm]

Or use overall indices and ignore the number of cards.

[moo321]

Or use overall indices and ignore the number of cards.

I think you're better off ignoring indexes on 3+ cards. Certainly on 4+ card hands. Take a 4 card 11 vs, ten, for example. No reason to double when you already get paid 3 to 2 if you catch a ten hitting.


Now I'm curious about this.

[aceside]

Non-blackjack 21 is paid 1:1 immediately in Spanish 21, not 3:2.