Harald Graenzer: Hit hard 12 against 4 in 1 deck game !!!

[Harald Graenzer]

Hello,

is there any other Software out there, that advises to hit with hard 12 against the 4 in a 1 deck (still well-balanced) game, as my Software (Black Jack Advocate) does?

The reason for that it is better to hit is prosaically, that by hitting a small card you not only betters your hand but also increase the probability of the dealer to bust; if you hit a ten-counting card you would decrease the Probability of the dealer to bust, but as you already lost in that case, this has no influence to your expected value. Only the increasing of the dealers probability to bust after you hit a small card makes a difference. And in a 1 deck game this difference is enough to make hitting to the better move. (You find the mathematically prove for that at http://www.bj-advocate.com/Calculation/Calc_Example.htm )

I would be interested if there is any other software with the same result. If not, I guess my software is the only one that calculates correct.

Black Jack Advocate

[Don Schlesinger]

> Hello,

> is there any other Software out there, that
> advises to hit with hard 12 against the 4 in
> a 1 deck (still well-balanced) game, as my
> Software (Black Jack Advocate) does?

You seem to be reinventing the wheel here. You seem to not be aware of what is known as composition-dependent basic strategy, whereby the actual two cards that make up the hand (rather than the total) can change the basic strategy. In single-deck games, there are several such alterations. The case you discuss is only for when the holding is 10-2. If you were to recommend hitting a 9-3, 8-4, or 7-5 total of 12 vs. the dealer's 4, you would be wrong.

I hope your simulator is showing that, as well, otherwise, you need to go back to the drawing board!

Good luck with your new product. It has some pretty stiff competition in SBA, CV, and BJ 6-7-8, to name just a few.

Don

P.S. Here are all of the two-card composition-dependent BS changes for SD, courtesy of Michael Shackleford's marvelous thewizardofodds.com site:

1.8 (6+2) vs 5 = Hit

2.8 (6+2) vs 6 = Hit

3.12 (7+5) vs 3 = Stand

4.12 (8+4) vs 3 = Stand

5.12 (10+2) vs 4 = Hit

6.13 (10+3) vs 2 = Hit

[Harald Graenzer]

> You seem to not be aware of what is known as
> composition-dependent basic strategy,

Of course I know the composition-dependent basic strategy (let's just tell it CPBS), and what you wrote is totally correct. For the CPBS my software would give the same advises you gave.

But I was talking from another composition of the remaining cards in the shoe. In the CPBS it is assumed, that the shoe has been well-balanced or full before the dealt of the first three cards. I was talking about the situation, that the shoe is well balanced AFTER the dealt of the first three cards. And in this case, whatever you have in your hand has no influance in the future cards that still could be drawn.

The question is: Suppose you have hard 12 against the Dealer's 4 and suppose you have 52 remaining cards in the shoe that are the same as a full deck. What is better? To hit or to stand? I say: you should hit! What does the other software say? (BS is stand)

> Good luck with your new product.

Thank you very much, Don. I will do my best.

Harald

Black Jack Advocate

[Don Schlesinger]

> The question is: Suppose you have hard 12
> against the Dealer's 4 and suppose you have
> 52 remaining cards in the shoe that are the
> same as a full deck. What is better? To hit
> or to stand? I say: you should hit! What
> does the other software say? (BS is stand)

Well, the problem is, Harald, that there isn't a number small enough to express the probability that such a subset could actually exist, so the question is kind of moot.

There is a fine product on the market called "Blackjack Subsets" and it gives the precise expectation for any holding, given the exact composition of the remaining cards in the deck (shoe). I think you ought to have a look at this product, to see if you are simply duplicating what it already does.

Don

[ET Fan]

> Well, the problem is, Harald, that there
> isn't a number small enough to express the
> probability that such a subset could
> actually exist, so the question is kind of
> moot.

Sorry to drop in late. Harald can just consult the tables in Chapter 6 of Griffin's Theory of Blackjack. They are specifically prepared for full deck composition. Column 11 for hard 12 v 4 shows +.65% in favor of hitting.

I'm certain Thorp and Braun had FORTRAN routines to show this by the time the 2cnd edition of Beat The Dealer appeared.

Harald could also use Chapter 6 to derive the two card composition dependant exceptions you listed.

ETF

[Harald Graenzer]

In another Black Jack newsgroup I discussed the same question.
I like to tell here some conclusions that I draw out of it, and that are relevant for my postings here (some is copied from my posting there):

A few days ago I posted here the question, if some other Software is calculating correct or if only mine, because I calculated for hard 12 against a 4 with a well-balanced 1 deck left in the shoe the better advise is to hit.
Of course there are! I verified my numbers by comparing them with others, and we all have had the same values at the end. [I have had a little bit luck, because my values for H17 contained a bug, and the correct value of the favor for hitting in this case is very small (only +0.07%)].
But I fixed that bug in conjunction with a "DLL-Missing"-bug and released a new Revision of Black Jack Advocate that is available now on my homepage. All people who downloaded Black Jack Advocate 1.0.0 should update. An Update-file is also available on my homepage.

I used the Site http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/ev/ev.htm to verifie my calculations after bugfixing, and except splitting decisions my values correspond exact. Due to the multitude of cards that must be considered in splitting decisions I suppose that Cacarulo's values on that Site for splitting decisions are estimations as well as mine, and that we only used different approaches. The differences between my values and Cacarulo's concerning splitting decisions are very small, I didn't find one that exceeds 1% difference.

I like to add here, that I do not advise to hit hard 12 against the 4 in all cases, although it is right in the special case I was taking about. I agree that it may be to sophisticated to analyze the well-balance remaining cards situation and to integrate such cases in BS, because the useful effect at the end is zero or perhaps contraproductive, because it could confound people; although it may have a theoretical justification.

Black Jack Advocate