Norm, since when putting good numbers is a degradation in quality?
DD 3v2 V 5 or 6 is the proper play at specific times like mentioned.
What's wrong with that?
Secretariat,
Just because a play is +EV does not mean it is the EV-maximizing play. For example, doubling down on a BJ vs. a 10 is +EV, but standing is by far the better option.
As I mentioned in the long-ago 2013 post that has the Dealer Bust Rate vs. TC for each upcard, I performed the study for the purpose of analyzing "dealer bust" sidebets where the bet is placed after the dealer's upcard is revealed.
Also, please note that the thread to which you are referring was not closed by Norm but rather by iCountNTrack. Norm gets enough grief without being blamed for the decisions of others.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Ho I know it wasn't Norm. Turned out I was right. ICNT wanted to throw that thread to yellow. He decided to close it instead. It seems every other time he shows up he mentions the disadvantage forum. As far as I know, Norm manages this place.
That's why I asked him in this new thread. 21forme was right in his post. My numbers were right. How can ICNT an administrator of this forum, talk about degradation when my numbers are correct and he knows it? Sounds like voodoo to me. Plus he refuses to discuss and slams the door. That's a shame. I would never run my business that way but this is not my business. If we can't discuss correct numbers here, what's the point?
Dog Hand you are ALWAYS helpful and I appreciate that.
Just because the dealer bust rate is over 50% does not mean it is the correct play. The dlr bust rate is the same for hitting and doubling. I didn't see any calculations that indicated that DD and ending up with a stiff with twice as high a bet surmounted the option of hitting multiple times, not even counting risk aversion. Even if I had, performing such mental gymnastics at the table instead of using index tables makes no sense to me.
If the shortstop snags a ball, he does not go through the calculations of where to throw the ball depending on the number of outs and position of runners. He knows this before stepping on the field as he has prepared himself in advance.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
The irony is that I used a tool recommended by Don to get the numbers. ICNT didn't like the correct numbers and radically closed the thread. By doing so, it seems ICNT overrided you Norm. What the hell is going on? Looking back, yes, it was a yellow threat Norm.
Maybe you should explain how you guys work.
OK, let's go somewhere else. Page 260 Professional blackjack, 4D H17. Wong gives +12 and +13 for the indices of 32v5 and 32v6.
Again Norm. Why being so stiff about correct numbers and close a thread (Icnt) not you) ? THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.
I invested a huge 5 seconds of my life to learn those 2 basic indices and that can be refined.
I have a theory about this allergy to the term "dealer break". Did Jerry get so badly under your (the group) skin? Nobody talked about him until ICNT brought this up in his last sentence. It really was not necessary.
So let's look at this gem of yours
654jkj.jpg
Chance favors the prepared mind
>The thread was clearly going off the rails.
>It was not a yellow threat.
>With due respect to Stanford, I would not trust a fringe index generated on a 1975 era PC. Braun generated Hi-Opt II indices on a multimillion dollar IBM 7044 mainframe and did not have an index for that hand.
>If you spent five seconds learning those indexes, go ahead and use them if you wish. But, hyping the usefulness of one overall stat that is not used for index generation when an impressionable member is making it sound like this is of general value is not good.
>The correct EV-max index for 3,2v5 is +14. RA index, which gains the most money, is +15. That count occurs in about one in 100,000 hands for all possible hands. Less than one in a million for that hand at that count. +12 DD with a max bet, which you would be using at that count, would be an error.
>I have been spending ten hours a day trying to add new functionality to beat new rules and am under constant interruption. I have no time for this squabbling.
325.jpg
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
What I didn't include in my anecdote, which I can't now because the thread was closed for no rational reason, is this was a DD game, last had of the deck and all 8 aces were already played. Under those conditions, I belive it was the correct play. Norm, can you run the chart again with a custom deck composition, with no aces remaining?
The only insult I see is from a moderator (not you Norm) telling me that my post is stupid.
My numbers are correct.
Now, Cat lover ICNT, check your CA(s) and let us know what you get for TC7 23v5 and 23v6 at the 52 card mark
Deck compo is
33333555/18/4
It should say Double down is the correct move.
What does one sample deck composition have to do with anything? And why would you think a dealer bust rate of 54% would be worth throwing away the option to draw a third or more cards while doubling the amount put at risk on a guaranteed stiff hand?
Index generation requires examination of vast numbers of compositions at all reasonable penetrations.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
1. Do not misquote me. I did not say that Wong's numbers are too old. I gave a specific reason to ignore those fringe indices which require vastly more effort to calculate. Details matter.
2. You did not respond to either of my two questions.
3. The phrase "you know that I am right" is extremely confrontational and rarely correct. What I actually know is that you provided a meaningless situation that simply has nothing to do with AP. It is of no interest as nothing about general cases can be derived from it.
Seriously, blackjack study is more complex than you appear to believe. By making statements like x% better without any explanation, you give the appearance that you think calculations are far simpler than they are.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Bookmarks