Which is a more playable game?

[TheBalanceOfJudgement]

I've been going somewhat back and forth on this one because I'm still learning how to balance the varying factors that make games 'playable' so a quick bit of advice here is much appreciated.

Which of these two games is more playable:

1. 6D, 1.5-2 D pen, S17, DAS, RSA, double 9-11 only, late surrender, 6 cards pays even money - $100 table max.
2. 6D, 1-1.5 D pen, H17, DAS, RSA, double anything, late surrender, 7 cards pays even money - $250 table max.

Odds calculators obviously pick 1) as the best game. However, adding the following twist:

1. keeps the tables full (response to partial tables is almost immediate, e.g. closing them or replacing shoes with CSM's) and you will get pressured eventually if you're backcounting or wonging (not back-off pressure, but pressure to play).
2. typical to be able to play with max 2-3 other people, and there's no pressure to play even if you sit and watch all night.

My gut experience has been that 2 actually ends up more playable but I'm curious what others here think because going by gut is not exactly the most rigorous approach.

[BJGenius007]

I've been going somewhat back and forth on this one because I'm still learning how to balance the varying factors that make games 'playable' so a quick bit of advice here is much appreciated.

Which of these two games is more playable:

1. 6D, 1.5-2 D pen, S17, DAS, RSA, double 9-11 only, late surrender, 6 cards pays even money - $100 table max.
2. 6D, 1-1.5 D pen, H17, DAS, RSA, double anything, late surrender, 7 cards pays even money - $250 table max.

Odds calculators obviously pick 1) as the best game. However, adding the following twist:

1. keeps the tables full (response to partial tables is almost immediate, e.g. closing them or replacing shoes with CSM's) and you will get pressured eventually if you're backcounting or wonging (not back-off pressure, but pressure to play).
2. typical to be able to play with max 2-3 other people, and there's no pressure to play even if you sit and watch all night.

My gut experience has been that 2 actually ends up more playable but I'm curious what others here think because going by gut is not exactly the most rigorous approach.

Both games are pretty bad. You need to find games with S17 and double on any two with decent penetration (75%). RSA and LS are not as important as S17 and DOA.

[Lonesome Gambler]

Wrong! LS is far more important to the counter than S17. I think the second game is marginally preferable, for three reasons: DOA, pen, and table max. Pen is critical for a counter, and 1-1.5 is not that bad (especially the former). A 6D game with 2 decks cut off where you can only double 9-11 is garbage, even with the 6-card rule. The higher table max means that you can get bigger bets out (assuming your bankroll can support such wagers), and it also implies that this table has a higher minimum, which means that conditions will likely be less crowded. This means more rounds per hour. Assuming you can still wong out during negative counts, the higher minimum shouldn't be an issue.

And for the record, the Wiz says that a 6-card Charlie is worth +0.16%, while a 7-card Charlie is worth +0.01%. Combined with S17, this gives option one a much lower house edge, but the lousy pen, D9, and low table max (with assumed increased crowding and accompanying slower game speed) are highly problematic.

[Lonesome Gambler]

That said, I've seen the effective decrease in house edge for counters with an additional 1/2 deck increase in penetration; does anyone have this info handy?

The house edge looks like it's around 0.2% for option one and 0.45% for option two, so I really do feel like the decision is going to come down to whether or not the table max is an issue and whether or not there's a significant game speed increase between the two. I'm also not taking into account any increase in heat between betting the max in option one.

[21forme]

I pick #2

[bigplayer]

That said, I've seen the effective decrease in house edge for counters with an additional 1/2 deck increase in penetration; does anyone have this info handy?

The house edge looks like it's around 0.2% for option one and 0.45% for option two, so I really do feel like the decision is going to come down to whether or not the table max is an issue and whether or not there's a significant game speed increase between the two. I'm also not taking into account any increase in heat between betting the max in option one.

Late surrender will increase your SCORE by 50% over the same game without surrender. Resplit Aces will increase SCORE by about 25%. Together they are a dynamite combo. Why? The variance reduction allows for a higher betting unit...thus higher SCORE. It's not as much about variance reduction but about how much more money you can put into action at the same or lower level of risk.

Likewise, as penetration gets deeper it becomes far more valuable than rules. Once you get to the half deck cutoff point the exact rules become sort of irrelevant...the game is either fantastic or more fantastic. 1.25 cutoff h17 is about the same as 1.75 deck s17 in terms of SCORE. Throw in more liberal soft doubles and the h17 game is the best choice IMHO.

[mjbballar23]

I pick #2 easily because of Pen + Table Max + game speed

[AussiePlayer]

The bosses may also be more focused on the S17 game themselves, thinking it's the more profitable game.

[Most Interesting Man]

#2 all the way. The downside of H17 is more than compensated by all other factors you listed.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Clear choice here. #2 by a furlong !

[TheBalanceOfJudgement]

You guys are fantastic... thanks for the confirmation. My immediate reaction is to shy away from H17 but given the choices it still ends up better and my EV has been better at those tables but I couldn't quantify why. You've helped me focus my attention properly. Thanks!