HC: The Logic behind Basic Strategy

[HC]

Does anyone knows, if basic Strategy takes account into what will be resulted if the player not only consider his own hand but also "what card to leave to the dealer in order to bust the dealer"? Does it ever practically matter if one take or doesn't take a card if playing the last box? i understand that a card is unknown until revealed, but if the shoe is full of high cards, so that if the last base person "hit" has a high probability of hitting out a high card... etc, so that action when playing the first base will be differ from the last base.

Does this logic make any sense?

[Parker]

> Does anyone knows, if basic Strategy takes account
> into what will be resulted if the player not only
> consider his own hand but also "what card to
> leave to the dealer in order to bust the dealer"?
> Does it ever practically matter if one take or doesn't
> take a card if playing the last box? i understand that
> a card is unknown until revealed, but if the shoe is
> full of high cards, so that if the last base person
> "hit" has a high probability of hitting out
> a high card... etc, so that action when playing the
> first base will be differ from the last base.

> Does this logic make any sense?

Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant, the important thing to understand is that it is faulty.

Basic strategy is the play with the highest expectation, based only on knowledge of your hand and the dealer's upcard. You have no way of knowing if the shoe is "full of high cards."

Even if you did, you have no way of knowing the exact order of the cards. In taking a card you are equally likely to help or hurt the dealer. The idea of "taking the dealer's bust card" is a myth, albeit a popular one, along with "third base controls the table." Why would taking a hit at third base be any different from taking a hit at any other position? Any hit will affect what card goes to the dealer.

[Wolverine]

HC,
It appears you are making a logical error in your question. You asked a question about Basic Strategy and then are trying to include having information about high or low cards as well.

Basic Strategy assumes all other cards remain in the deck or shoe to be dealt EXCEPT for the player's starting cards and the dealer's up card. It doesn't take into account any PREVIOUSLY used cards. So playing BS is completely different than counting cards.

If you are counting cards, then you have some knowledge of what cards have been played previously. Obviously, if you know there are an abundance of high cards, your strategy for play MAY change. We address those changes through INDEX play (i.e., a variation from Basic Strategy based upon the count) and that MAY include a situation where you hit or don't hit in contradiction to BS.

A common INDEX play is varying your hit or stand options on your card total of 12. BS says to HIT your 12 vs a dealer upcard of 2 or 3. If there are many more 10s and Aces in the deck (a + HI-Lo deck), it is a common index play to NOT hit your 12 vs a 2 or 3 dealer upcard. Conversely, a - Hi-Lo deck may indicate the opposite reaction to BS and you may HIT your totals of 12 vs a dealer upcard of 4.

I hope this explanation helps you to see the distinction between what you are asking and what you were expecting. Thanks for joining the discussion.

[Don Schlesinger]

It is also very important for HC to understand that, when counting, the decision, on the part of the third baseman, to hit or stand has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what that decision may or not do to the dealer's hole card (ENHC) or subsequent hit cards. There is never any change at all in the player's strategy, with traditional counting or BS play, or any consideration whatever of what your play might do to/for the dealer's hand. Repeat: Never! Ever!

Don

[HC]

Then is there any simulation results concluding anything about the third base myth? (third base's card is more likely to be reflected by the count) or is that just bullsxxt?!

thanks

[HC]

I understand how BS (as well as indices variation from couting) is generated. What i want to ask is , is it based on the assumption that what the dealer WILL BE drawing is independent from what the player HAS JUST DRAWN. This is why i ask if playing box 7 will be a bit different. I.e. is there any study that takes the expectation of player with what the dealer will draw to be dependent (on the same hand) ?

[Norm Wattenberger]

> I understand how BS (as well as indices variation from
> couting) is generated. What i want to ask is , is it
> based on the assumption that what the dealer WILL BE
> drawing is independent from what the player HAS JUST
> DRAWN.

No. Obviously if there is only one Five left, the dealer and player cannot both draw it. This has been studied to death. What any player does cannot affect what the dealer draws, unless the players force the dealer to run out of cards.

[MGP]

Wolverine:
> Basic Strategy assumes all other cards remain in the deck
> or shoe to be dealt EXCEPT for the player's starting
> cards and the dealer's up card.

This is the old way of doing it that I disagreed with awhile ago on BJMath. A truly accurate "Basic Strategy" takes into account all hands that are actually played, not just the "player's starting cards." This is how I do my BS calcs and how they were done for Don and Cac's strategy tables for BJA3 and the cards.

HC:
> I understand how BS (as well as indices variation from
> couting) is generated. What i want to ask is , is it
> based on the assumption that what the dealer WILL BE
> drawing is independent from what the player HAS JUST
> DRAWN.

See above. A properly constructed basic strategy takes into account the player's cards and the hands that can be arrived at by following the strategy.

> This is why i ask if playing box 7 will be a
> bit different.

Other player's cards however are not taken into account so it really makes no difference where you're sitting or even if you're playing more than one hand if you are truly playing a fixed strategy without counting.