Advice Needed

If you believe that the FA-effect exists in theorie than you should also acknowledge that it can possibly be exploited in practice.
I admit that in our example with 8 decks from the start and a cut-off of 1.5 decks this effect is rather limited and that's why I'm dismissing ET Fan's proposal.But it's still enough to give you a slight edge in the last deck of the shoe at TC+1.

Francis Salmon

PS. I don't know what you mean with your 2166 postal. Is that your FIDE-rating? Mine is 2354.
I have never played a correspondance game in my life. I have always felt that it would take up too much of my time and nowadays with the use of computers, it isn't a fair contest anymore.

For H17,DAS,LS 6.5/8, you have a 0.36% advantage at +1 (page 268).

... exactly what I said in the post, no more no less. Your figures, (and your terminology -- "Hard 17 rule"?) are out of step with the rest of the blackjack community. Adding .48% for each TC is incorrect at the 0 to 1 level. It's especially wrong when LS is in effect.

ETF

Your last remark about big bankrolls and bet sizing comes round to saying that a professional doesn't need a betting scheme. You don't really mean that, do you?

I don't have a copy of BJA2 at hand but I can imagine that Don meant the advantage at a penetration level of 6.5/8 with which I agree entirely as you can see by carefully reading my previous posts.
But this doesn't mean that you have the advantage when only one deck has been dealt as ET Fan implies.

Francis Salmon

Even in a 100 years there will still be roughly 0.5% for each TC particularly at the 0 to 1 level. The LSR rule is negligible in this instance.The Laws of nature dont change over the years,likewise the laws of Blackjack.

Francis Salmon

Francis friend!
I don't have the slightest idea where the hell did you get your
figure of -.57 for USA rules 8dks, H17, DAS and LS and 6.5/8 delt out.
I've got these numbers:

BSE = -.49
TC1 = .355

So, I'm forced to agree with ET FAN relative this point.

On the other hand, consider also that I've here with me precisely
a simulation vs. a disadvantage off the top of -.57 for an European
6dks game, with these results:

TC 1 = .204 with a SE = .0074 (74 ths. of a percent)

I'd add here, that this TC is floored and not rounded.
Rounding TCs are not 'in vogue' Francis.

Congrats btw for your FIDE Elo points, 2400 is the boundary for IM,
I guess.

Regards
Z

... I came on here tonight to throw Francis the flooring bone. Probably better you mentioned it, since he thinks my posts are "ridiculous." ;-)

I don't know for sure whether advantage is > 0 precisely at +1. I think it would be very, very close. However, if I had a BR of 4500 units, and a target ROR of 5%, I really would put out a sizable bet at +1. Dealer error is always a factor where I play. If a dealer is perfect, it's time to make like the white rabbit.

Surrender makes a difference. Near zero, you can add about +.57% per TC, and after +3, it's c. +.68%.

Regards,
ETF

I don't know for sure whether advantage is > 0 precisely at +1. I

think it would be very, very close.

This is quite a way from your initial claim that advantage is 0.35% at +1.

However, if I had a BR of 4500 units, and a target ROR of 5%, I really would put out a sizable bet at +1. Dealer error is always a factor where I play.

This is a completely different issue. We would have to ask Ace man whether he has to deal with novice dealers at his place. You shouldn't forget that we also make mistakes and may be we don't detect all the dealer errors, which have a clear tendency to be at our expense.
That's why I don't attack before the theoretical advantage is 0.2%.
Below this margin the gain in EV would anyway be in no relation to the additional variance.

Surrender makes a difference. Near zero, you can add about +.57%

per TC, and after +3, it's c. +.68%.

Are you sure you're talking about Late surrender? I haven't programmed late surrender but with ES10 I noticed a delta of 0,58% per TC.

Francis Salmon