another ENHC Question!! :-)

Hi,
I know I am not ment to double "11 vs.10" in ENHC, but, do I employ the doubling down with "11 vs.Ace","10 vs.Ace" and "10 vs.Ten" when the count says so..aka "illustrious 18"? Or do I just forget these Playing Variations coz of the ENHC?

Forget the rest.

But if you believe in that risk-averse stuff, +4 is fine.

I re-checked the Lose All to a Natural table in PBJ and it does say that the EV-maximising index is +4. Do you have a different source?

Wong says it's +3 which coincides with my own findings.I have got +3.1 with my CA-Program to be precise.

Francis Salmon

As a curiosity, Halves index is also +3, but amazingly the risk-
averse index is +8. Being this stuff now 'in vogue', you don't
need me to tell you what I have done with it, do you?
Both options here, seems to me equally valid, personal decisions,
after all. Maximizing expected value is fine, but survival too, at least for me.
Regards
Z

A risk averse index of + 8 for 11 vs 10 in ENHC seems plausible to me.
When I double I get usually the ace or - what's even more frustrating- I get the 10 and the ace is for the dealer!
Hope I survive in spite of these bold plays :-)

Francis Salmon

I have the 1994 edition of Wong's Professional Blackjack in front of me. In Table 29 (Lose All to a Natural, S17) on page 82 it says that the Hi-Lo index for doubling 11 vs 10 is +4. Where does Wong say that it is +3?

I've double checked PBJ (1994 edition) and curiously on page
82, Table 29, Lose All to a Natural, S17, the index in my
book for 11 vs. 10 is 3.
Wong used himself the data from BCA (1993 edition) to write these indexes on his book, I guess. If you put BCA to work for the appropiate rules it will give you +3.
Many years ago, I remember I've got +4, using Imming's software,
so, 'pecata minuta', as you see.
What about throwing the index to the wastepaper basket?
Regards
Z

There must be an error in one of the printings, and it sounds like it's in mine. Just my luck. Thankyou for being patient with me.