I have heard, that in BJ exist winning hands(like 20 vs. dealers 8 or 9, and losing hands, like 17 vs. dealers 9 or ten. There should be many other combinations. My question: Are there any "losing hands" which change statistically in "winning hands", when the true count is positive? I hope sombody can give be the correct answer.
Thank you
> My question: Are there any "losing
> hands" which change statistically in
> "winning hands", when the true
> count is positive? I hope sombody can give
> be the correct answer.
Sure. There are a few plays that are "close." Depending on rules and numbers of decks, a change in count can switch the loser into a winner.
Don
> Sure. There are a few plays that are
> "close." Depending on rules and
> numbers of decks, a change in count can
> switch the loser into a winner.
> Don
OK,let me talk about it like this: We don`t hit
12-16 vs. dealers 2,3,4,5,6(vs.2 and 3, if TC >2, six deck). In wich case is the probability of winning any of these hands more than 50%, because the TC has riched a certain level, or will this never occur?
steve
Why does it matter? I'm not trying to be snide. If there were a way to bet on this it would be useful. If it's just curiousity that's OK too.
In Fred Renzy's new book "Blackjack Bluebook II" he talks about 6D, Mag 7 hands. These are the hands that are at 0 or mighty close to 0 and only one or two small cards can make a neg hand into a positive hand. The 7 hands are as follows:
9 vs 2
11 vs A
12 vs 4
13 vs 2
16 vs 10
A/7 vs 2
A/8 vs 6
I think?? Don once said even with this info you'll win about 43 or 44 hands out of 100. They'll be 8-9 pushes and the dealer will win the rest.
>These are the hands that are at 0 or
> mighty close to 0 and only one or two small
> cards can make a neg hand into a positive
> hand.
Correction: only one or two cards can change the correct play.
> Correction: only one or two cards can change
> the correct play.
Are you sure about the "one or two" cards part? I read on his website about "five cards" for those hands where the index is closer to 1.
In any event, these hands are not converted from losing hands to winning hands, it's just that the optimal play changes.
p.s. I liked his website a lot - it's designed for basic strategists, and is excellent for beginners. He is very thorough and clear. I haven't read his book, though
... + 1 or 2 should do the trick on these 7 hands.
These 7 hands are very close to or at 0. These 7 hands can also be used as camo hands if the situation calls for it.
I didn't think Fred had a website?
> Are you sure about the "one or
> two" cards part? I read on his website
> about "five cards" for those hands
> where the index is closer to 1.
There is a lot of Fred Renzey stuff at renzey.casinocitytimes.com.
It's not clear to me if you're talking about RUNNING count or TRUE count: For a RUNNING count of -1 or -2, hit 12v4; For a TRUE count of +1, double 9v2.
Renzey translates a TRUE count of +1 into "about five cards", which is not a bad rule for a 6D game and you're not counting cards.
What do you think about his "wheeling and dealing" between players concept? I've never seen it done.
p.s. What is a "camo hand"?
> ... + 1 or 2 should do the trick on these 7
> hands.
> These 7 hands are very close to or at 0.
> These 7 hands can also be used as camo hands
> if the situation calls for it.
> I didn't think Fred had a website?
> Correction: only one or two cards can change
> the correct play.
It only takes one or two cards if we are playing single deck, or are at the end of a deeply dealt shoe. Otherwise, as Mr. Ed pointed out, it takes several cards to create a change of +1 or -1 in the true count.
Also, some of us (me, for one) use risk-averse indices, which means that the index for doubling, for example, 9 vs 2, is nowhere near zero.
This is a hand played opposite basic strategy. At times it's the correct play based on the count and at times it's the wrong play but at minimum monetary cost; usually only a few cents per $100 bet.
Ex. Always standing on hand 16 vs 10.
> p.s. What is a "camo hand"?
> In Fred Renzey's new book "Blackjack
> Bluebook II" he talks about 6D, Mag 7
> hands. The 7 hands are as follows:
> 9 vs 2
> 11 vs A
> 12 vs 4
> 13 vs 2
> 16 vs 10
> A/7 vs 2
> A/8 vs 6
Reply: The "Mag 7 Hands", like Hand Interaction is a way for a non-counting player to play some of his hands above and beyond basic strategy. He does this by counting up the exposed cards on board when he has one of these 7 hands. The medium he uses is "Babies vs. 10's" (babies are 2's, 3's, 4's and 5's). It's all simply an extrapolated "snipet" of card counting for hands with true count indices between "0" and "1". But the Mag 7 player merely uses his running "board count" to activate the plays since all other cards are considered still available (even though half the shoe might be gone).
Standing with 16 vs. 10 requires a board count with more babies than 10's. Hitting 12 vs. 4 requires more 10's than babies, Doubling with A/8 vs. 6 requires at least five more babies than 10's, etc.
Be aware that a counter who's been counting down the shoe from the get-go might override a Mag 7 play due to his more complete information. Still, for a B/S player, taking 10 or 12 cards into account is superior to considering only 3.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks