situation: 6D, S17, 3 decks dealt, Hi-Lo RC = 7, number of 7's dealt = 17?
situation: 6D, S17, 3 decks dealt, Hi-Lo RC = 7, number of 7's dealt = 17?
> situation: 6D, S17, 3 decks dealt, Hi-Lo RC
> = 7, number of 7's dealt = 17?
My question is: how sure are you 17 - 7's were dealt?
You can use the table on p. 76 of Griffin's Theory of Blackjack to figure this problem out, though the math on how to do it is scattered throughout the book. The technical answer is "yes, if you can't surrender" but why are you side counting sevens unless you already have a system in place to answer this?
In real casino play, you should stick with your system, and with hi-lo you always hit 7-7, unless you can surrender and TC >= +4.
ETF
> My question is: how sure are you 17 - 7's
> were dealt?
Very sure. If two counters play at the same table (which I know is a bad thing in general) and one uses Hi-Lo while the other one uses K-O, they have an automatic side count of 7's.
> You can use the table on p. 76 of Griffin's
> Theory of Blackjack to figure this problem
> out,
Soon to be even more accurate and expanded EOR tables in a new Appendix D of BJA3, softcover!
> though the math on how to do it is
> scattered throughout the book.
See pp. 87-90.
Don
... pp. 87-90 in ToB or in BJA3? I'm aware of the explanation on p. 86 of ToB, but you also need to know how to set up a "typical" shoe for RC = 7 with 3 decks remaining, and then you need to know how to adjust the 11th column for 6 decks as per Chapter 14. You can come up with an educated guess, as in ToAnyOne's response below, but then right away, someone will want to know whether to stand with 14 or 15 - 7s out.
ETF
> See pp. 87-90.
> Don
> ... pp. 87-90 in ToB or in BJA3? I'm aware
> of the explanation on p. 86 of ToB, but you
> also need to know how to set up a
> "typical" shoe for RC = 7 with 3
> decks remaining, and then you need to know
> how to adjust the 11th column for 6 decks as
> per Chapter 14.
In ToB. And, I think Zenfighter's post addresses some of these issues.
Don
I think Zengrifter is doing CA. The whole point of Griffin's linear approximation technique is to avoid having to do CA, and also to get a better estimate than one CA, with an integral number for each rank, can provide. Griffin's linear estimate of a "typical" deck generally involved fractions for each rank. For example, see his discussion of 2.75 or 2.8188 aces vs. a typical deck he hypo'd with a nice round integral number (2) of aces on p. 68.
The ultimate solution, with CA, would be to probabalize all possible subsets that meet all the criteria: 14 v T with a +7 running count at n=156 and 7 - 7's remaining. Griffin did this as well (for other hands), but Zengrifter isn't doing this. See, eg. p. 199 for a table with the complete CA (Exact gain) and two methods of linear approximation (Estimate A and Estimate B) for various hands vs. an ace.
ETF
> I think Zenfighter's post
> addresses some of these issues.
> Don
> I think Zengrifter is doing CA. The whole
> point of Griffin's linear approximation
> technique is to avoid having to do CA, and
> also to get a better estimate than one CA,
> with an integral number for each rank, can
> provide. Griffin's linear estimate of a
> "typical" deck generally involved
> fractions for each rank. For example, see
> his discussion of 2.75 or 2.8188 aces vs. a
> typical deck he hypo'd with a nice round
> integral number (2) of aces on p. 68.
> The ultimate solution, with CA, would be to
> probabalize all possible subsets that meet
> all the criteria: 14 v T with a +7 running
> count at n=156 and 7 - 7's remaining.
> Griffin did this as well (for other hands),
> but Zengrifter isn't doing this. See, eg. p.
> 199 for a table with the complete CA (Exact
> gain) and two methods of linear
> approximation (Estimate A and Estimate B)
> for various hands vs. an ace.
> ETF
this is the greatest BJ site in the world. It is always a treat to have ETF, the man who taught S.W.K. Advantage Play, posting on this site....along with the legendary DS and others.
I say we make ETF an official, "Master Of BJ".
Strength and Honor,
Ouchez.
> I think Zengrifter is doing CA. The whole
> point of Griffin's linear approximation
> technique is to avoid having to do CA, and
> also to get a better estimate than one CA,
> with an integral number for each rank, can
> provide. Griffin's linear estimate of a
> "typical" deck generally involved
> fractions for each rank. For example, see
> his discussion of 2.75 or 2.8188 aces vs. a
> typical deck he hypo'd with a nice round
> integral number (2) of aces on p. 68.
> The ultimate solution, with CA, would be to
> probabalize all possible subsets that meet
> all the criteria: 14 v T with a +7 running
> count at n=156 and 7 - 7's remaining.
> Griffin did this as well (for other hands),
> but Zengrifter isn't doing this. See, eg. p.
> 199 for a table with the complete CA (Exact
> gain) and two methods of linear
> approximation (Estimate A and Estimate B)
> for various hands vs. an ace.
> ETF
I think you guys are making this way too complicated, in the case of 14 vs 10, the 7 is so overwhemingly important compared to the rest of the cards that a very crude approximation of the rest of the cards will do quite well, it would certanly out-perform any single parameter system.
I would also like to add for the benefit of those that are not familiar with the EOR, that 14v10 is actually a quite volatile play that comes up very often, the only reason that hilo does not have an index for it, is because it does not count 7's. For RP who already has this information at his disposal, it is a worthwile add-on, somebody correct me if I am wrong, but i'd say in the top 30 indexes, and it has good cover value.
May all the 7's come in threes,
TAO
> My question is: how sure are you 17 - 7's
> were dealt?
> You can use the table on p. 76 of Griffin's
> Theory of Blackjack to figure this problem
> out, though the math on how to do it is
> scattered throughout the book. The technical
> answer is "yes, if you can't
> surrender" but why are you side
> counting sevens unless you already have a
> system in place to answer this?
> In real casino play, you should stick with
> your system, and with hi-lo you always hit
> 7-7, unless you can surrender and TC >=
> +4.
> ETF
These kinds of posts always get my attention, because I hardly ever see anyone that matches the indices I use for Hi-Lo.
Here is my question. I use 5 surrender indices:
16 v 9/10/11 always surrender
15 v 9 surrender TC of 2 or more
15 v 10 surrender TC of 0 or more
15 v A surrender TC of 2 or more
14 v 10 surrender TC of 3 or more
For the last one, you said 4+. Can you cite a source for that? I generally practice against CV blackjack, using the "hi-lo" with illustrious 18 + fab 4 indices, and displaying the charts gave me the above numbers. Is CV blackjack off a bit, or am I misunderstanding the index you gave???
> For the last one, you said 4+. Can you cite
> a source for that? I generally practice
> against CV blackjack, using the
> "hi-lo" with illustrious 18 + fab
> 4 indices, and displaying the charts gave me
> the above numbers. Is CV blackjack off a
> bit, or am I misunderstanding the index you
> gave???
The "generic" surrender index for 14 v. 10, multi-deck, is +3 (it's +4 for SD). But, for the specific holding of 7,7 v. 10, the surrender index is actually one point lower, at +2, for multi-deck.
Don
> The "generic" surrender index for
> 14 v. 10, multi-deck, is +3 (it's +4 for
> SD). But, for the specific holding of 7,7 v.
> 10, the surrender index is actually one
> point lower, at +2, for multi-deck.
> Don
Thanks. I think.
So generic is +3, which is what I have been using for a good while, ET fan said +4, which is a bit more conservative than my index, and you mentioned that with the specific case of 77, surrender at +2, presumably because two of the 7's are obviously missing, lowering the probability of a 21.
Now, back to the meat.
ET vs DS. I believe you both know what you are doing. But obviously +2 and +4 can't be right. At the present, I like my number since it is the average.
I assume from your comment you are assuming ET fan was giving a SD index, even though the original question was about 6d? If so, then perhaps that clears up all of this muddy water.
In that case, thanks, without the "I think"...
ET vs DS. I believe you both know what you are doing.
There is no vs. Don is always right. (He's older than I am. ;-) )
I got the +4 from BJA2. It lists +4 for 1, 2, 6 & 8 decks. But I assume Don is now giving you more current info from later/better simulations. Which leads to the speculation that 2 points, one way or the other, probably makes very little difference on this index.
ETF
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks