Using KO, 6 decks doa, das, split 3 times.
According to KO indices, at plus 4 using the above conditions, KO says to double on hard 8 against dealer 5 or 6.
Naturally, at that count, max bet is in the box.
I just took to big hits going down for doubles in that situation.
I'm ok with the hits, as long as the math guys agree with Kenny and Olaf that it was the correct move.
I do it, but I always felt insecure about that double.
What does the MATH DITATE?????????????
Regards,
Hollywood
> Using KO, 6 decks doa, das, split 3 times.
> According to KO indices, at plus 4 using the
> above conditions, KO says to double on hard
> 8 against dealer 5 or 6.
The Hi-Lo indices are not the same. They are actually almost two apart, with 8 v. 6 being somewhere around 1.7, I think, and 8 v. 5 being 3.5. Wong gives them as 1 and 3. As always, a K-O index can't be accurate everywhere, if you don't true count, but +4 actually seems a bit high. With any number of decks left, that equals a Hi-Lo +4, as you know.
> Naturally, at that count, max bet is in the
> box.
> I just took two big hits going down for
> doubles in that situation.
So, what else is new?! :-)
> I'm ok with the hits, as long as the math
> guys agree with Kenny and Olaf that it was
> the correct move.
Well, there is the concept of risk-aversion, which says to wait a little longer to make such doubles, if you have a max bet (2% of bank? more?) out. In that case, Hi-Lo would be about +3 and +5, v. 6 and 5, respectively. If three decks remained, playing K-O (IRC = -20), those Hi-Lo TCs would correspond to K-O +1 and +7.
> I do it, but I always felt insecure about
> that double.
> What does the MATH DICTATE?????????????
You did the right thing. As usual, the cards did the wrong thing! :-)
Don
> The Hi-Lo indices are not the same. They are actually almost two
> apart, with 8 v. 6 being somewhere around 1.7, I think, and 8 v.
> 5 being 3.5. Wong gives them as 1 and 3. As always, a K-O index
> can't be accurate everywhere, if you don't true count, but +4
> actually seems a bit high. With any number of decks left, that
> equals a Hi-Lo +4, as you know.
> So, what else is new?! :-)
> Well, there is the concept of risk-aversion, which says to wait
> a little longer to make such doubles, if you have a max bet (2%
> of bank? more?) out. In that case, Hi-Lo would be about +3 and
> +5, v. 6 and 5, respectively. If three decks remained, playing
> K-O (IRC = -20), those Hi-Lo TCs would correspond to K-O +1 and
> +7.
> You did the right thing. As usual, the cards did the wrong
> thing! :-)
> Don
So Mr. D.
The bottom line is that you would have done the same thing?
Win, lose or draw. If that is the case then i'm always confortable with the move.
Thank you for the help as always,
Hollywood
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks