S. Wong A2 v 5

[Freightman]

For doubling 10 v T the HL has a CC of only 81%. If you used the KO instead the CC of doubling 10 v T is 91% and if you kept an Am8c side count with the KO then the CC of (KO - Am8c) has a CC of 97%. The expected value index for all three counts is still around 4 and you can use 7 as the risk averse index to be conservative. The HL is not that good for doubling 10 v T.

I know Norm is going to say CC are approximate and assume linearity but they have been shown to work very well especially when the CC increases by a large amount for a given play like 10% or so as they do here for doubling 10 v T.

10v10 is very sensitive to Aces. You can relax RA7 with ace surplus. Otherwise, tow the line. I prefer Halves over Hi Lo, for more precise TC count on this very profitable, but high risk play.

Further, review my post 34 and Dons post 35, and especially BJA3 pages 370 thru 378, on approaches that I had not previously considered - that being strength of wager, and intersection of values between double and non double of 10v10.

Visit Freightman’s Forays for the latest in Covid era play.

[bjanalyst]

10v10 is very sensitive to Aces. You can relax RA7 with ace surplus. Otherwise, tow the line. I prefer Halves over Hi Lo, for more precise TC count on this very profitable, but high risk play.

If you use psrc = playing strategy running count = KO - Am8c = KO + 8mAc then the tag values for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T A are 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, -1, -2. So the Ace has a tag value of -2 in psrc which shows excess Aces are very important for this double as you mentioned and CC(psrc, EoR) for doubling 10 v T is 97%.

Also using psrc you have a deficiency of 8's which is also important for this double. So because psrc = KO - Am8c is so efficient for doubling 10 v T you can probably reduce the risk averse HL index of 7 to 6 if you use KO - Am8c.

Here is the logic of KO - Am8c:

For doubling hard 10 v T consider psrc = playing strategy running count = KO – Am8c = KO + 8mAc. As Am8c decreases then there is a deficiency of 8’s and excess of Aces left in the shoe. Thus, if player doubles his hard 10 it is more likely player hits his hard 10 with an Ace for a perfect 21 and less likely that player hits his hard 10 with an 8 for a total of 18. A total of 19 against a dealer’s Ten up card is a winning hand but a total of 18 against the dealer’s Ten up card is a losing hand. Thus, as Am8c decreases doubling hard 10 v T becomes more desirable. This agrees with the formula psrc = KO – Am8c. As Am8c decreases, psrc increases and eventually tc(psrc) surpasses the risk averse index of 6 and player doubles his hard 10 v T.

By the way, using the complicated Wong's Halves level 3 count with a side count of Aces which is approximate and not exact like a plus/minus side count the best you can do is to use psrc = WH + 1.4*(Aexc) where WH = Wong's Halves and Aexc = 4*dp - Ap = excess aces left in the shoe and the CC of that psrc for doubling 10 v T is 90% which is actually below the very simple stand alone KO count which has a CC of 91% for this play and even father below KO - Am8c with its 97% CC. Not a good idea.

[beating vegas]

3 pages of nonsense over something as simple as how to play A,2 vs 5???

I know right.

[bjanalyst]

I know right.

A2 v 5 was the starting point for a discussion on risk averse indices. Risk averse indices are not nonsense.

[beating vegas]

A2 v 5 was the starting point for a discussion on risk averse indices. Risk averse indices are not nonsense.

Is your name Ship the Cookies ?

Your splitting hairs over a 1percent advantage over the house. Assuming you don’t make any mistakes.

[ShipTheCookies]

Nothing risk adverse about this play. You'll have a min bet out 99.99999% of the time.

[beating vegas]

Nothing risk adverse about this play. You'll have a min bet out 99.99999% of the time.

Now you done it. Here comes an essay.

[Freightman]

Now you done it. Here comes an essay.

you shoulD start to read some of it. I started to - there’s actually some interesting shit in there.

[beating vegas]

you shoulD start to read some of it. I started to - there’s actually some interesting shit in there.

Look I think it’s great you guys want to squeeze the most out of a count.

I don’t. If I’m playing a counting game that means I couldn’t find a better game. As far as count games go high low is good. In my opinion your making a strategy more complex and not getting a big enough return out of it.
However if your happy with the return that’s all that matters.
I like the 8 percent games. A lot less heat and you can flat bet. All you need is good eye sight. Better profit compared to counting.

[Freightman]

Don

Information regarding the specific 10v10 situation, in addition to bankroll strength, also is dependant on the weakness or strength of the actual wager. I had not considered that before. The section regarding intersection of calculation was pretty straight forward, though I intend on reading the section again sometime tomorrow.

I actually specifically thought of your comments on a very recent hand. The bet was only $200, so the double was automatic. At a hi limit Table, depending on factors, including QTC, my upper ramp Bet would have been between $400 and $600.

If that in fact had been the case, I would have likely have not doubled, keeping your comments in mind. All that would have happened would have been the loss of additional EV on 1 particular hand.

[Freightman]

Look I think it’s great you guys want to squeeze the most out of a count.

I don’t. If I’m playing a counting game that means I couldn’t find a better game. As far as count games go high low is good. In my opinion your making a strategy more complex and not getting a big enough return out of it.
However if your happy with the return that’s all that matters.
I like the 8 percent games. A lot less heat and you can flat bet. All you need is good eye sight. Better profit compared to counting.

i don’t need to squeeze by far, the last nickel, but I do enjoy knowledge, and the challenges it creates. As an example, I’m kinda sorta mentoring a young fellow, who’s quite aggressive. He seems to want to squeeze the last nickel.

Our circumstances are different, which further means our goals are different. I can, of course, give him lots of good ideas. It’s up to him to listen, and decide if he wants to execute. You’re either referring to CSM play, which I believe is profitable (in the right hands), however subject to high variance. Or, you are referring to Hole Card play.

At one time, I might have been interested, however, they’re lots of other things that I want to do, and time is at a premium due to the strains of my excessive and gruelling 4 hour work week.