RP: Would standing on 14 v. 10 be correct in this

[Francis Salmon]

> I don't know what you did to get +29.13, but
> you can figure out the best linear estimate
> for EV(hit) - EV(stand) for Zeng's subset by
> using the the chapter 6 tables, the method
> described on p. 86, and the adjustment for 6
> decks described on pp. 231-233. If my
> calculator is right, you should get -1.80%,
> in pretty close agreement with Zeng's delta
> of -1.66%

Now I realize I made a mistake with Zeng's subset,thinking it was the subset after the last deal,but one has still to remove 2 tens and 1 four.After allowing for this I get a total point value of 26.84 for the three decks. If we divide by 3 we get a value per deck of 8.95 which means that in this particular subset the balance has shiftet by 8.95% in favour of standing compared to normal distribution. In the normal deck hitting is about 7% better than standing,so now standing is favoured by slightly less than 2% which confirms Zeng's data.
I'm still a bit puzzled by this 0.22 per card index. I first thought it represented the initial difference between hitting and standing but 0.22%multiplied by 52 results in a gap of 11.44% which cannot be true.

Francis Salmon

[Don Schlesinger]

> I'm still a bit puzzled by this 0.22 per
> card index. I first thought it represented
> the initial difference between hitting and
> standing but 0.22%multiplied by 52 results
> in a gap of 11.44% which cannot be true.

It's a true-count index. 11 would be the Hi-Opt I index for standing on 14 v. 10.

Don

[Francis Salmon]

[ET Fan]

With the Griffin tables again, adding one TC (removing 0.1 - 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's, and 6's while adding 0.1 Aces and 0.4 Tens) subtracts 0.67% per deck from EV(Hit) - EV(Stand), while subtracting one 7 and adding 1/12 to all other ranks subtracts 4.47%. So each seven is worth 6.6 TCs!

I think it was John Imming who used to say "7's rule."

Thanks for the good work.

ETF

> For conducting the following experiment and
> exact 14 vs. T EoR?s table has been
> extracted out of a 6 decks pack (very
> slightly differences with Griffin?s one).
> 1) Off the top initial hand T, 4 vs. T
> 2) The player will always face the same off
> the top hand but against a progressive
> sevens depleted pack. Hi-lo count, as
> usual.
> Removed 7s Full-deck favor. for
> hitting Stand if TC=> Action
> 0 7.41102 11.0643 h
> 1 6.73046 10.0317 h
> 2 6.04547 8.99256 h
> 3 5.356 7.94682 h
> 4 4.66201 6.89441 h
> 5 3.96345 5.83526 h
> 6 3.26029 4.76931 h
> 7 2.55246 3.69648 h
> 8 1.83994 2.61672 h
> 9 1.22266 1.52996 h
> 10 0.400588 0.43612 h
> 11 -0.3263* -0.664858 s
>
> * Note that despite the fact of having here
> a negative true count (TC= - 0.171141, after
> removing t, 4, t and eleven 7s)
>
> the player is better standing than
> drawing.
> This fact strikes to me more amazing than
> standing with TC = 2 on a poor 7s depleted
> packet.
> Hope this clarifies the issue a little more.
> Sincerely
> Zenfighter
>

[Gorilla Player]

> 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???

[Don Schlesinger]

> 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

[gorilla player]

> 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 Fan]

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

[Don Schlesinger]

> 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.

Actually, in this specific case, I believe it may be a question of a "betweener." My guess is that the precise blended index for generic 14 v. 10 in multi-deck is between 3 and 4.

But, the 7,7 index is definitely lower.

> Which leads to the
> speculation that 2 points, one way or the
> other, probably makes very little difference
> on this index.

I like the lower index for 7,7. When in doubt, ... surrender! :-)

Don

> ETF

[gorilla player]

> Actually, in this specific case, I believe
> it may be a question of a
> "betweener." My guess is that the
> precise blended index for generic 14 v. 10
> in multi-deck is between 3 and 4.

> But, the 7,7 index is definitely lower.

> I like the lower index for 7,7. When in
> doubt, ... surrender! :-)

You failed to post a reasonable TC index for surrendering.

> Don