I'm taking a look at page 83 of Griffin's book right now.
With no information available, standing is 0.65% better than hitting.
Let's say
Round 1 -
me: T4 (0)
player2: A43 (2)
player3: A52 (1)
dealer: 6TT (-1)
RC: 2
Other notes: 2 aces exposed, 1 deuce exposed, 11 cards exposed
Round 2 -
me: T2 (-1)
player2: 36 (2)
player3: T4 (0)
dealer: 2 (0)
RC: 2 + 1 == 3
Other notes: 2 aces exposed, 4 deuces exposed, 19 cards exposed
Using hiopt1,
RC is 3,
TC is ~1.8
There are also 2 aces exposed, 4 deuces exposed, and no middle cards at all exposed.
The exact math in the example above comes out to be that standing is 0.23% better than hitting when using Griffin's numbers.
My question is how do I make strategic adjustments at game speed using hiopt1? The breakeven point at RC 3 is no longer 0.65%. How do I get an estimate of what it should be and translate that into index plays?
Can I just treat the RC as percentages (I know the answer is no, but I think it is close)? So at a RC of 3, the breakeven point is 3.65. In the example above, there is a surplus of 4.5 middle cards, the RC estimate becomes -0.85.
Also my goal is to figure out
a) what are some other round 2 plays where strategic adjustments matter a lot where side tracking 7s-9s matter,
b) if the sum of (frequency of occurrence) x (dollars made) in everyone of those plays is enough to make this worth analyzing,
c) a shortcut to take for those plays (eg, +-1 or +-2 for surplus or deficit of a middle card)
I feel like the main argument would be
a) this is complicated and thus I'll be prone to making errors,
b) the frequency of occurrence probably occurs way more at negative counts and thus adds little when it matters (I'm making a guess on this one),
c) bet spread trumps strategic adjustments (I'm making another guess here, but I have a feeling it still matters esp if bet spread is at 1-3 or 1-4).
I don't side count 7s-9s, but it's not hard to notice whether or not there is a surplus or deficit after just 1 round on a crowded table, so I think there is still a lot to be gained from this. Also I want to reduce my spread as I believe it increases longevity. By doing so, I think I need to improve my play.
Anyways, I think the main thing I learned about this exact play is deficits of middle cards matter a lot more than surpluses. If the count is negative, but a bunch of 7s, 8s, and 9s are exposed then I should be standing since they act like low cards.
Last edited by FishBear; 08-20-2017 at 03:35 PM.
I'm a recreational player. I used hi-lo with huge bet spreads for years w/o a care in the world how the math works. I want to advance my game now.
I think analyzing 1 hand at a time is very important. In the end, my goal is to group similar hands together so I use certain heuristics for that group of hands.
Right now I'm trying to figure out if it is worth making strategic adjustments based on 7s-9s exposed on round 2.
If the EV gains from this is in the pennies then I'll ditch it.
If the EV gains is way more than pennies (I believe so along with lower stdev) then I want to learn.
It also occurred to me that this might benefit in situations where you start off the top of the shoe with more than a 1 unit wager.
Off the top of the deck, I think I'm losing somewhere along the line of 0.5 to 0.8% of my wager with basic strategy based on the house edge.
If I can reduce this by a good amount with better PE, then I'm okay with starting the top of a DD with a bigger bet as cover. I guess the question is how many of those plays exist and will it reduce the house edge by enough to make it worth analyzing?
NOTE: Don S used Hi-Opt I for his calculation.
I applaud that. It is perfect for this purpose.
Hi-Opt I was actually created as a platform for
Side-Counting ALL of the excluded ranks, but
the indices were being sold to purchasers of ~
"The World's Greatest ..."
Dr. Gordon's counted ranks used the deuce,
instead of thetrey. That created a slight dip
in B.C. but smartly improved the P.E. Dr.
Gordon's indices for the GordonCount.
Hi-Opt I is a poor choice for shoe games and a
poor choice overall without several Side Counts.
Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 08-21-2017 at 05:29 AM.
Well the good news is, is ho1 doesnt already count these into the main count..The best hand for YOUR count s 15 vs. 7,8,9,X,A but ALL your 16s will be hurt from counting the sixes at +1..As ZMF pointed out, hi opt1 was more than likely designed to keep a separate side-count of the 7,8,9s individually..However that is not to say, you couldnt get some gain from counting them as a subgroup as well..Insurance decisions wll be your biggest gain here from side-countng them in a sub-group, followed by 15, 16 vs dealers 7,8, because these will bust your hand of 15 and 16 and give the deal 14, 15 and 16(17) on the 7,8 up card respectively..Addtonally there will be a nice gain from H12 against the dealers bust-card and likely some gain from a few H13s contingent of dealers up-card..
The thing is, with any Multi-parameter system, some study and analysis is required to determine which hands a surplus or deficit of the side-counted card(or cards) helps or hurts particular hands and by how much, and then appled accordingly...For example, in your example of H12 with almost 1/2 deck deal out you should had an Avg. estimate of about 5 mddle cards(7,8,9) which in your case there was none..So the Avg. weight of these iin respect to your Level 1 count you should adjust your RC -1 for every one your short, while these should be to ADD+2(estimating here) for 16v7..Of course you need good deck estimation skills as well since your keeping track of 3 cards per 1/4 deck(4.33 per card)...
Last edited by Jack Jackson; 08-21-2017 at 11:13 AM.
http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi
Just did a quick you tube search on Cricodile Dundee scratching balls, and came up with link below.
https://youtu.be/n6fgPX3NjyA
Bookmarks