Looking at an 8D, S17 game, BS for 9v6 is D6.
Table A5, with no modification for 8D in Table A9, lists the index for doubling 9v6 as -3. Is this due to rounding or a calculation error? Thanks.
Looking at an 8D, S17 game, BS for 9v6 is D6.
Table A5, with no modification for 8D in Table A9, lists the index for doubling 9v6 as -3. Is this due to rounding or a calculation error? Thanks.
> Looking at an 8D, S17 game, BS for 9v6 is D6.
The 6 refers to a six-card hand; it isn't an index. See p. 12, Table 3.3.
> Table A5, with no modification for 8D in Table A9,
> lists the index for doubling 9v6 as -3.
Correct.
>Is this due to rounding or a calculation error?
Neither. See above.
Don
> The 6 refers to a six-card hand; it isn't an index.
> See p. 12, Table 3.3.
I know that. Let's assume we're talking 2 card hand, so the 6 doesn't come into play. BS says Double.
The index, being -3, means hit when TC is -3 or less. If BS assumes TC = -4, why isn't BS Hit, rather than Double?
> The 6 refers to a six-card hand; it isn't an index.
> See p. 12, Table 3.3.
There aren't any 6 card 9's that I know of - only 2,3 and 4 card 9's. If there's no redoubling you should double 2 and 3 card hands and hit 4 card hands.
Maybe it's a typo or means something else?
> There aren't any 6 card 9's that I know of - only 2,3
> and 4 card 9's. If there's no redoubling you should
> double 2 and 3 card hands and hit 4 card hands.
> Maybe it's a typo or means something else?
It's actually D4, not D6 - my mistake. In any case, not related to my original question.
> I know that. Let's assume we're talking 2 card hand,
> so the 6 doesn't come into play. BS says Double.
> The index, being -3, means hit when TC is -3 or less.
> If BS assumes TC = -4, why isn't BS Hit, rather than
> Double?
That must be a rounding issue with a close play. Maybe the exact number is -3.5 on S17 and -4 on H17...?
> The index, being -3, means hit when TC is -3 or less.
> If BS assumes TC = -4, why isn't BS Hit, rather than
> Double?
BS doesn't assume TC =-4, or any true count. BS removes the two cards in your hand and the dealer's upcard, and then decides what the best play is. No assumption is ever made of the TC, and it doesn't have to be -4 (and clearly isn't, in this case, as three cards are small).
Don
> BS doesn't assume TC =-4, or any true count. BS
> removes the two cards in your hand and the dealer's
> upcard, and then decides what the best play is. No
> assumption is ever made of the TC, and it doesn't have
> to be -4 (and clearly isn't, in this case, as three
> cards are small).
Don,I always thought basic strategy sims for regular BJ are "off the top" ...in other words, the sims start at a TC of 0,then the composition of cards are used in determining the best strategy,is this correct? I believe he's saying -4 tc in sp21 is "off the top".
Thanks
> Don,I always thought basic strategy sims for regular
> BJ are "off the top" ...
Correct, but only after three cards are removed -- your two and the dealer's upcard.
> in other words, the
> sims start at a TC of 0,then the composition of cards
> are used in determining the best strategy, is this
> correct?
Yes, see above. The important thing to understand is that the three cards have to be removed first. In the case of the play we're discussing, they're all small cards, raising the running count by three most of the time.
>I believe he's saying -4 tc in sp21 is "off the top".
Yes, I understand. That is what he's saying, and I know that, but BS is NOT based upon a TC of zero nor a RC of -4 for an unbalanced count (SP21).
Here's just a single example, in regular BJ, to help you to understand. In single-deck, H17, it is BS to double 8 v. 5. So, does that mean that at a Hi-Lo TC of zero, it is correct to double 8 v. 5? In fact, the index is +2! It isn't even correct to double 8 v. 5 (remember, it's BS!) at +1. That's because, the upcard of 5 counts +1, and the two cards that form a total of 8 are either 6,2 (+2) or 5,3 (also +2). So, off-the-top, the RC is +3 when we make this play, and, therefore, the index of +2 tells us to double.
You understand that nowhere in that above discussion did I ever mention a TC of zero.
See the point?
Don
> Looking at an 8D, S17 game, BS for 9v6 is D6.
> Table A5, with no modification for 8D in Table A9,
> lists the index for doubling 9v6 as -3. Is this due to
> rounding or a calculation error? Thanks.
Firstly: I'm looking at my book (page 15) and I see BS for 9 vs 6 as being D4, not D6.
No edition of my book has ever had D6 on this page for
It's not possible for the play to be D6 as there is no possible 6 card 9.
Secondly: The index for 9 versus 6 is -3. That is correct. On page 149, it talks about this. It's the same thing in Blackjack for 16 versus X. BS says hit, but if TC = 0, you stand.
The reasons why this is the case is that neutral count (-4 in SP21) is an average of all hands with this count, at the start, middle and end of the shoe. BS is just for the first hand. So just because the BS play is a double, it doesn't mean that the TC = -4 play is a double. It does MOST of the time, but not ALL the time.
Also: this is not in Table A9. It is Table A5. There is no 8-deck variation for 9 versus 6. Not in any version of my book, and not on the website.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks