Seven: Blackjack Attack and Red 7

[Seven]

While reading BA, I came across the Red 7 stats, and a couple questions popped up.

1) Were the indicies used straight from BIB? (ie simple 6 for first half, then the advanced strategy)

2) Could someone explain the logic behind the two different sets of indicies?

3) As pivot is eguivalent to +2 Hi Lo, can I use pivot for the optimal wong in point for a 1-4 spread on 6 deck games?

4) Say Don, uh...you never gave a sampling of the optimal wong in points for Red 7. Could ya?

5) And maybe a betting plan (or am I pushing it here...)

Anyway, thanks for the great book Don!

Seven

[Don Schlesinger]

> 1) Were the indicies used straight from
> BIB? (ie simple 6 for first half, then the
> advanced strategy)
No. All the indices were custom-generated by SBA.

> 2) Could someone explain the logic behind
> the two different sets of indicies?
Which two different sets?

> 3) As pivot is equivalent to +2 Hi Lo, can
> I use pivot for the optimal wong in point
> for a 1-4 spread on 6 deck games?
You could, but, according to the rules, you probably will want to enter before +2 equivalent. Also, just a comment: in general, a 1-4 spread is woefully insufficient for 6-deck games, unless you're following the plan we outlined for raising the unit size considerably from what you are accustomed to.

> 4) Say Don, uh...you never gave a sampling
> of the optimal wong in points for Red 7.
> Could ya?
John Auston has an entire book -- in his "World's Greatest BJ Simulation devoted to Red 7. I suggest you look into it. Alternatively, get BJRM. For example, if using a 1-4 spread, it tells us optimal Wong-in is at +14. For the more traditional 1-12 spread, it's +11.

> 5) And maybe a betting plan (or am I
> pushing it here...)
Again, suggest BJRM. You can customize everything you wish.

> Anyway, thanks for the great book Don!
You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed.

Don

[Seven]

Thanks for the feedback, Don.

Regarding the two sets of indices...

In "Blackbelt in Blackjack" Arnold suggests six simple deviations for all games. At 0...16v10 and 12v3. At 2...Ins, 15v10, 10v10, and 12v2.

(irc=-2xdecks)

He then gives an advanced Red 7 strategy to be used in the second half of shoe games. Ie Ins, 10v10, 12v2, etc... are now deviated at a rc of 4.

Why is this so?

Seven

[Don Schlesinger]

"Why is this so?"

Unlike true counting for balanced counts, unbalanced counts have to make "concessions" to the fact that the SAME running count (except at the pivot) implies DIFFERENT true counts (and, therefore, different edges) at different parts of the deck.

The "one running count fits all" approximation is just that -- a compromise to make learning indices easier. So, a more "advanced" approach is to use more than one set of indices depending on where in the shoe you happen to be.

Don

[Seven]