The indices for this play is plus 1 (hi-low) How profitable is this play. I know its not in the ILL 18, but I have has good success with it
It's basic strategy for single deck.
1. It won't happen very often. Ditto for other doubles like 9 vs 7, even 8 vs 6 or 7, etc. They are rare.
2. When they happen, you will always wonder "damn, is it worth doubling here or not?"
The point is that even though the hands are rare, when you get one suddenly it is important. :) What I found myself doing over time was starting with the I-18 (as most do) but then each time I had a big bet out and an "interesting opportunity" presented itself (8 vs 6 for example, but there are plenty of others) I would just go look up that particular index, and commit it to memory. And over time, the "interesting" double indices became a part of my normal play.
A8 vs 6 is more rare than 8 vs 6 since there are more ways to get 8, but when you are dealt that hand, it suddenly becomes far less rare for the moment. I've not tried to remember all the hilo indices, because I simply don't play enough to be able to do that accurately enough. But doubling is one of the highly profitable opportunities and when you have a big bet out, and a reasonable opportunity for getting even more out, you want to know that index. The bizarre hit or stand indices are important, but not as much so as the doubling indices.
Just my $.02 as always. But I can tell you this. I can _painfully_ remember opportunities to double that were missed because I had not learned the right index. 8 vs 6. Got a 10 (didn't double). Dealer flipped over his 10 and then promptly busted. One big bet lost since I did not double. Fortunately I have forgotten the cases where I had a big bet out, doubled 8 vs 6, got a deuce and went down in flames. :)
Selective memory can help at time...
These were not part of the original I18. However, several years back Cac did some studies that showed that there were 4 plays that were move valuable than some I18 plays, under certain circumstances. A8 v 5,6 were two of them. I think the others were 8 v 5,6.
I think Don call the I18 + 4 new plays are called the Catch 22.
As bigplayer notes, A8 v 6 is BS in single deck games. It is also BS in H17 games. I don�t think there is any game where A8v5 is BS.
Despite being a BS play, doubling A8 v 6 is a high-profile. High profile is a bit of an overstatement; it is less high-profile than splitting 10s. However, in my view it is more high-profile than standing on 15v10.
When questioned about the play, I would recommend against saying �But this is a Basic Strategy play.� I do not believe that would deflect heat.
When questioned about the play, I would recommend against saying �But this is a Basic Strategy play.� I do not believe that would deflect heat.
When questioned about doubling A8 vs. 6 or A8 vs 5, I usually say something like, "Everybody doubles on nine vs. six or five. This is better than a nine. If I draw a deuce, I have 21 instead of eleven." That usually ends the discussion.
> Despite being a BS play, doubling A8 v 6 is high-profile.
> When questioned about the play, I would recommend against saying �But this is a Basic Strategy play.�
Don't wait to get questioned. I'd let them know right from the get go ... you love to double! Double that big ole' nine!! I'd say. Especially against that dealer bust card!!! If they bring it up, ask 'em what a soft hand is anyway!? Tell 'em all you see is a nine, just another opportunity to get more money on the table and stick it to 'em!!!!! You love to double!
It's the truth, right? You do love to double. The truth is always easier to remember than something else. Ok, acting like you've never seen a soft hand might be a stretch.
BTW, in my reduced and rounded 6D/H17 matrix, I double those two at TC=0. Is that to soon?
Also, I've mentioned before I love to split tens. I know it's probably marginally effective in the long run (if that), but I just like doing it. To that end, I agonize about every T,T I draw. I may not split them, it may not just 'feel right' but when I do they are mentally prepared.
For a 6 deck S17 game, playing Hi/Lo I use the following indices for these plays A8v6(+1) A8v5(+1) 8v6(+2) 8v5(+4)
These are interesting DD plays, which always get a lot of attention among
civilians but too valuable to ignore, particularly in SD and and H17 games.
I added A8 vs. 5,6 to the traditional I18 indices for 6D, S17.
Using a 1-12 spread, play-all, 5/6 pen. I get an increase in score and hourly win rate
of around 2.6% and 1.7%, respectively.
For H17 I would expect much less impact of course since DD on A8 v. 6 is BS.
Results of 5B round simulations are shown below:
Av. bet StdDev Hourly win
EV STDERR per round per unit rate Score
===============================================================
I18 1.093% 0.0026% 2.22 1.87 2.91 34.2
I18+A8v5.6 1.110% 0.0026% 2.22 1.87 2.96 35.1
One has to be a bit careful about percentages. If you have a weak game, then a small improvement is going to be a large percentage.
In this case, you base game has a SCORE of 35, which is below what many people consider �playable�. If you improve the game by adding Wonging, the percentage will go down.
Also note that the Std Err is relatively large compared to the difference. The difference in IBA is 0.007, and the std-err of each is about 0.026%. If these are being played against different shoes, then the combined std-err is about 40% higher, or someplace in the ballpark of 0.004%. So the difference is 0.007% and the Std Err is 0.004%; these means results are statistically insignificant. In the terms of pollsters, �the difference is within the margin of error�.
If these are being played against the same shoes, then the STD error is MCH LESS, and the results are more significant.
Way back when, learning only the Ill-18 and Fab 4, per Schlesinger, and incorporating those in a reduced and rounded matrix, per Snyder, seemed like a good thing to do, and I did. One size fits all for me!
(Interesting that these two former 'buddies' are the cornerstone of mine, and many others game. A thanks to both of them is probably appropriate; so, thanks to you both.)
When I saw Cac's deal, I incorporated those add'l four plays also.
Everything got rounded to either 0, 2, or 4 [except for splitting tens, which I do anywhere above 5, but I try to hold myself back until 6 :)]. I play mostly shoes and try like heck to stay off negative counts. It has worked well for me.
I've probably been a little early on those two A8 plays, but having discussed it now, will probably not forget it.
And to you also CK -thanks. I always read your stuff!
(Is it time to sing "Kum By Ya' yet)
:)
Could you expound a little on how you rounded to 0 , 2 or four. I'm always looking for ways to stay unimpeded by the thought process and that sounds useful. Thanks!
(for HILO) I took evey avaiable sim I could find, in every decent book I could read, laid them down side by side, identified the Ill-18 and Fab 4, and began eye-balling them. Pretty scientifc, huh.
Then I just generally rounded up (if 3 seemed right, I called it 4.) (Except in the case of A8 where it seems I rounded down!)
I did that for SD, DD, and 6D. I really only use what is primarily a 6D matrix as I play a minimal amount of SD and DD.
Then I compared what I came up with to the other multi-deck index sets I could find at the time.
Today, I'd just get Blackjack Attack 3 and use the indices found therein and round-up. I think Blackbelt in Blackjack however describes reducing and rounding about as well as anything I've ever read.
BTW, accuracy is all well and good .. and needful .. but it is all about finding good games, in good conditions, and getting the big money out when called for.
Good luck.
I couldn't agree more with your statement about finding the games and conditions and then getting the money out. BL in BJ page 77 has the 0 block and the +2 block. Maybe I'll start there and try that for a while. I'm just trying to condense all the info thats out there into a workable format that gives my head a rest. It's nice to sip a brew and relax a little while at work. Thank's alot for the response.
Regards, Jack.
Yes, I was little bit in a hurry and didn't let it run as long as I wanted to. I will run some longer simulation to get more significant results. As you say the relative improvement would be much less in a stronger game. I just took a 1-12 spread, play-all game here as an example.
You are obviously still using the 2nd edition of BBIBJ! :)
The 3rd edition is worth the money.
Speaking of the -0- block, if you are a wonger and try to generally avoid negative count games, you can forget the -0- block.
With reference to 9v2 or 11vA say, there is nothing to learn, nothing to memorize. For a wonger, the -0- block oughta be your basic strategy.
I thought I had heard that the MIT boys used a simple +2 matrix; I'm not totally positive about that and their BR and bet ramp is far different from mine, but if true, it reconfirms for me that simpler is better.
Which is not in any way saying lazier is better. :)
Good luck.
First, a correction in a number in your comment:
"Also note that the Std Err is relatively large compared to the difference. The difference in IBA is 0.007, and the std-err of each is about 0.026%"
The difference in IBA was actually 0.017% for a stderr of 0.0026% so it wasn't that bad. Anyway, I would still like higher significance so I re-ran the same 1-12 spread simulations for 3e+10 rounds each. I got a difference in IBA of 0.013% with a stderr of 0.0011%.
Av. bet StdDev Hourly win
EV STDERR per round per unit rate Score
================================================================
I18 1.092% 0.0011% 2.22 1.87 2.91 34.1
I18+A8v5.6 1.105% 0.0011% 2.22 1.87 2.95 34.8
Your sims show a difference of 0.7. The difference in SCORES is the same as the difference in EVs, for an optimal bettor with ma 10K KEB.
Almost all of this gain comes in rounds where the pre-deal count was positive. If a player introduced some Wonging, the plays would still get the same 0.7 EV gain. In fact, they might get a little more, since the player could be betting greater amounts at a rue count of +5.
Even the baseline SCORE was up to 60, they would still have over a 1% gain. This is a lot of gain for a couple of indices, so your sims indicate that these are valuable plays.
