CVData does get -1 for ES and +2 for LS. It assumes Surrender is -.5 in both cases.
If your left column is ES and right column is LS we completely agree.
I take your word that conditional values can be used for ES but I only use unconditional.
Note to Don:
The -53.06% value for LS represents the value of the hand before dealer checks for blackjack. Whenever dealer has determined he does not have blackjack this extra information changes the (LS) EV to -50%. I think that in general check happens at end of hand, not beginning like in full peek so it's not out of line to say EV for LS is -53.06% because that's what it is at the time decision to surrender is made.
k_c
Last edited by k_c; 03-17-2023 at 02:42 PM.
This is what's so funny about both your note to me and Cac's chart above it: You both act as if, in the second column, the person who hits or stands actually DID that, even if the dealer later has a natural. In the latter case, the person did NOT hit and he did NOT stand; it just looks as if he did, because he goes through the motions. To calculate the EVs, you do nothing different from the standard American game. If the dealer has a natural, you IGNORE what the player did with his hand.
Note to k_c: Your words are clear, but the notion simply doesn't describe anything relating to blackjack! The TIMING as to when the dealer reveals his hole card cannot possibly change ANY expectations, and certainly not that of LS. Yet again, SPEAKING the word "Surrender" is NOT surrendering. You don't get to surrender until the dealer has seen his hole card. And thinking that it changes the surrender EV depending on whether the dealer sees his hole card at 7:30:25 or 7:30:26 is just plain silly.
Game 1: Don heads-up against the dealer in Las Vegas. I get 16 vs. T and, while the dealer is sliding his ten into the little camera to read the hole card, I yell out "Surrender." The dealer ignores me, sees an Ace underneath, and says, "No can do," and he takes my full bet.
Game 2: K_c heads up against the dealer in the good ol' A.C. days: You get 16 vs. T and yell out "Surrender." The dealer ignores you, slides a card out of the shoe, flips the Ace, and says: "No can do," and he takes your full bet.
If you somehow see ANY MATHEMATICAL DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in these two scenarios, then you simply have spent too much time analyzing blackjack and not enough time playing it.
Don
Well, that's because in this case we're comparing surrender vs. hitting. Hitting does not lose extra bets (like splitting or doubling). On the other hand, the idea is to solve the problem by applying the European rules, not the American ones, and I think that is solved. But I understand that the explanation is complicated.
Sincerely,
Cac
The basic strategy for hitting vs stand vs surrender does not change between ENHC and PEEK games because, in the ENHC game, at the precise moment any of those decisions is made, the EV of the player's bet for any of those actions is subject to the identical "penalty" for the case where the dealer has a natural as compared to that exact moment on a hole card game where it is already known that there is no natural. As Cac says, since only one bet is in play, the change is identical and relative for all of those actions. This is also the reason why any indices between these decisions do not change. And, of course, the very reason we don't double or split (except A,A vs T) is because adding the extra unit to our bet increases the "penalty" for the case of a dealer natural for those decisions.
Bookmarks