ENHC surrender 88 vs 10 or A

[k_c]

This is getting a bit confusing. Let's look at the same example A4vT from the following scenarios:

1) USA rules
2) ENHC rules (lose all to a natural)

1) USA rules

Standing  = -53.83142398119472% | -56.65807149255014%
Hitting   = -17.04237712783513% | -22.12141526286563%
Doubling  = -49.62640116322295% | -52.71049905118890%
Surrender = -50.00000000000000% | -53.06122448979592%

2) ENHC rules (lose all to a natural)

Standing  = -56.65807149255014% | -56.65807149255014%
Hitting   = -22.12141526286563% | -22.12141526286563%
Doubling  = -58.83294803078072% | -58.83294803078072%
Surrender = -50.00000000000000% | -50.00000000000000%

Your conditional EV does not seem to correspond to ENHC. I know this is confusing.

Sincerely,
Cac

OK. I agree completely with your USA rules values.

For ENHC I do not compute conditional values at all, only unconditional values. In doing that when overall EV is computed I can use the EV for that hand directly (depending upon what the strategy is) as that hand's contribution.

If strategy for A-4 versus T is late surrender I say that hand's contribution is -.5306, not -.50.
If strategy for A-4 versus T is early surrender I say that hand's contribution is -.50.
(I agree with your ENHC stand, hit, double values as matching unconditional values.)

Unconditional values can always be used that way and that's why I prefer them.
Hope that is clear.

k_c

[iCountNTrack]

And I realize we should stop and not go around in circles, because we understand each other, and I don't mean to be condescending, but ... when you say, "If dealer does not have blackjack LS EV = -.5," you imply that, if the dealer DOES have blackjack, LS can have a different expectation, and I'm trying to get you to understand that that simply is NOT true. If the dealer has blackjack, and there is no ES, the RULES OF THE GAME do not permit you to surrender. So, to speak of late surrender in the same sentence as the dealer's having a blackjack simply is a non sequitur; one cannot logically follow the other.

I'll be happy to allow you or anyone else to have the last word, but I've more or less said everything I can think of to be said to get the point across. I will add that perhaps I have a little more perspective on all this than most, having played exactly such a game both in Puerto Rico for many years and in A.C., after they eliminated ES but continued to allow surrender even as the dealer continued not to take a hole card.

Don

To summarize Don's point with a one liner, surrender for ENHC can only be computed when you can in fact surrender in which case the EV will always be -50%

[Cacarulo]

OK. I agree completely with your USA rules values.

For ENHC I do not compute conditional values at all, only unconditional values. In doing that when overall EV is computed I can use the EV for that hand directly (depending upon what the strategy is) as that hand's contribution.

If strategy for A-4 versus T is late surrender I say that hand's contribution is -.5306, not -.50.
If strategy for A-4 versus T is early surrender I say that hand's contribution is -.50.
(I agree with your ENHC stand, hit, double values as matching unconditional values.)

Unconditional values can always be used that way and that's why I prefer them.
Hope that is clear.

k_c

Take a look at this calculator: https://wizardofodds.com/games/black...nd-calculator/

The Wizard is showing -0.5 on both scenarios.

Sincerely,
Cac

[k_c]

Take a look at this calculator: https://wizardofodds.com/games/black...nd-calculator/

The Wizard is showing -0.5 on both scenarios.

Sincerely,
Cac

It seems to me Wizard is computing conditional EVs and late surrender for USA rules.
In doing that dealer blackjack needs to be accounted for after the fact.

For ENHC Wizard is computing unconditional EVs and early surrender.

There is no option to choose late or early surrender specifically.

That's what I see.

k_c

[Cacarulo]

It seems to me Wizard is computing conditional EVs and late surrender for USA rules.
In doing that dealer blackjack needs to be accounted for after the fact.

For ENHC Wizard is computing unconditional EVs and early surrender.

There is no option to choose late or early surrender specifically.

That's what I see.

k_c

I think you're right. It is not clear which surrender he is referring to. And yes, it seems obvious that it is about ES.
That is why I say that it is a subject that generates confusion.
And I think I have it wrong too because I'm not doing the correct differentiation between LS and ES in an ENHC game.
I will be back.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

OK. I agree completely with your USA rules values.

For ENHC I do not compute conditional values at all, only unconditional values. In doing that when overall EV is computed I can use the EV for that hand directly (depending upon what the strategy is) as that hand's contribution.

If strategy for A-4 versus T is late surrender I say that hand's contribution is -.5306, not -.50.
If strategy for A-4 versus T is early surrender I say that hand's contribution is -.50.
(I agree with your ENHC stand, hit, double values as matching unconditional values.)

Unconditional values can always be used that way and that's why I prefer them.
Hope that is clear.

k_c

This is what I get now for ENHC:

Standing  =  -56.65807149255014% |  -56.65807149255014%
Hitting   =  -22.12141526286563% |  -22.12141526286563%
Doubling  =  -58.83294803078072% |  -58.83294803078072%
Surrender =  -50.00000000000000% |  -53.06122448979592%

Note that the conditional values can be used for ES and the unconditional values for LS.
Do we agree now?

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

To summarize Don's point with a one liner, surrender for ENHC can only be computed when you can in fact surrender in which case the EV will always be -50%

Well, I'm glad someone here understands, because it's clear that there is terrible misunderstanding in some of the other posts, no matter how many decimal points the combinatorial analyzers are spitting out!

If the dealer doesn't take a hole card, but if the rules of the game are otherwise identical to the American style of play, the mere fact alone of not taking a hole card has ZERO EFFECT on any of the BS or expectations of the game. And, with these stipulations, under no circumstances does it make the slightest sense to ever put a value such as -53% next to late surrender.

To imply that, under such circumstances, if the hitting EV were, say, -51%, you would hit instead of LS, is bizarrely incorrect. You calculate the BS for a NO HOLE CARD game precisely in the same manner as for a hole card game, provided you don't lose all to a natural. The "European" aspect matters only for doubles and splits, if you lose all to a natural. It matters not at all for hitting, standing, or surrendering. If you attempt to make ANY of those plays, but the dealer subsequently has a natural, YOU DIDN'T MAKE THE PLAY in the first place! You only wasted everyone's time (and maybe some cards by hitting), but you didn't change any of the EVs of the game one iota.

Don

[Freightman]

You calculate the BS for a NO HOLE CARD game precisely in the same manner as for a hole card game, provided you don't lose all to a natural

EV expectation per 100 hands for a hole card (HC) game is very slightly higher than a no hole card (NHC) - reason being high cards are wasted in high counts as dealer does not take 2nd card until all hands have taken theirs.

That being said, the NHC game is preferable (to me anyways) as HPH (hands per hour) are quite a bit higher and EV per hand per hour at NHC overcome EV per 100 hands at HC.

[DSchles]

EV expectation per 100 hands for a hole card (HC) game is very slightly higher than a no hole card (NHC) - reason being high cards are wasted in high counts as dealer does not take 2nd card until all hands have taken theirs.

But not true for BS calculations that are being discussed, because the EVs don't involve the notion of counting or bet variation.

Don

[Freightman]

But not true for BS calculations that are being discussed, because the EVs don't involve the notion of counting or bet variation.

Don

True enough, but for a forum of counters, I would think the info is useful.

[Norm]

This is a bit confusing in ENHC ES10 which is still LS against an ace. But, I don't see a reason for the concept of "unconditional". Surrender is giving up half your bet to throw out the hand. With LS you don't always get the option; with ES you do. Any effect is seen in the EVs for hit/stand/double/split. They are still compared against a surrender of 50% because you lose 50% of your bet when you surrender.

Edit: How is ENHC LS generally handled? It's been a long time since I've played that game.

[DSchles]

Edit: How is ENHC LS generally handled? It's been a long time since I've played that game.

I'd just call it NHC LS, so as not to confuse the concept of losing all for doubles and splits--the so-called "European" rules. There's no need to consider that. For LS, there are two options: 1) Place a "lammer" on the bet and wait till the dealer takes his hole card. Then take either the whole bet, in the event of a natural, or return half, if no dealer blackjack. Or, 2) Pick up the bet and put it on top of the cards, awaiting the dealer outcome. Then settle the wager.

In any event, deciding what to do with your hand is entirely separate from the NHC feature. For all decisions, you just imagine the dealer doesn't have a natural, because, if he does, your attempted actions to do ANYTHING (not just surrender) are irrelevant.

Don

[Cacarulo]

This is a bit confusing in ENHC ES10 which is still LS against an ace. But, I don't see a reason for the concept of "unconditional". Surrender is giving up half your bet to throw out the hand. With LS you don't always get the option; with ES you do. Any effect is seen in the EVs for hit/stand/double/split. They are still compared against a surrender of 50% because you lose 50% of your bet when you surrender.

Edit: How is ENHC LS generally handled? It's been a long time since I've played that game.

In principle we all agree that ES is not the same as LS. Now, let's think again about ENHC (Lose All to a Natural) and consider the play we discussed earlier: 77vT (6D,SPL3)
If we consider ES the Hi-Lo index should be "-1" but if we consider LS the index should be "+2/+3". When calculating these indices one must compare, for each TC, the expected value of 77vT and compare it against the expected value of surrender.
If this value is ALWAYS -0.5 (CONDITIONAL value) the only index that we would obtain would be "-1" (which is the one of ES). That is why for the LS case we cannot continue to use the conditional value for each TC and compare it against the expected value of 77vT.
Here we must use the UNCONDITIONAL value and by doing this we will correctly get the value of "+2/+3".

Sincerely,
Cac