-
Wizard of Odds: Is the basic strategy ever wrong for the overall game?
The two-dimensional basic strategy (without regard to the number of player cards) is usually defined as the best way to play each INITIAL hand. However not every play is off of a 2-card hand, as Don's strategy cards so well show.
My question is, restricted to a two-dimensional card, is there any known play under any realistic set of rules where the two-card optimal play is not the best play for the overall game?
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Is the basic strategy ever wrong for the overall game?
> The two-dimensional basic strategy (without regard to
> the number of player cards) is usually defined as the
> best way to play each INITIAL hand. However not every
> play is off of a 2-card hand, as Don's strategy cards
> so well show.
> My question is, restricted to a two-dimensional card,
> is there any known play under any realistic set of
> rules where the two-card optimal play is not the best
> play for the overall game?
If I understand your question correctly, there is one such play: In two-deck, A,7 v. A is a hit. But, the overall correct BS for soft 18 v. A is stand. Is this what you're looking for?
Don
-
Wizard of Odds: Re: Is the basic strategy ever wrong for the overall game?
Yes, exactly. Would that be for dealer hitting or standing on soft 17?
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Is the basic strategy ever wrong for the overall game?
> Yes, exactly. Would that be for dealer hitting or
> standing on soft 17?
Stand of soft 17 only. For H17, it's correct BS to hit in all cases (2-card or multi-card).
See BJA3, pp. 482-85, Tables B5-B8.
Don
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks