7s rich/8s neutral/9s void
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | T | A | |
17 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | H |
16 | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | H |
15 | - | - | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | H |
14 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H |
13 | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H | H |
12 | H | H | - | - | - | H | H | H | H | H |
This describes deviations from basic strategy which are appropriate when, at the half deck level, there are four 7s, no 9s, and all other ranks are at half their full deck quantity. Notice how generously you hit thirteen and fourteen.
You may think that if all eight 7s and 8s were present the case would be even more extreme. Oddly enough, it isn't. But I've shown you enough, maybe, to spark your curiosity. Remember that with three different states (Poor, Neutral, Rich) for four different ranks (789A) you have 3^4 = 81 seperate conditions, for hit/stand, hard double, soft double and splits. That's a lot of decisions and a lot of tables. How much you can use and how much can you gain by using it (meaning how close to unity becomes PE) isn't easy to answer.
An important benefit from recognizing these densities and acting upon that recognition is that it confounds the task of evaluating your play by a standard skill test. Why? Because there is no card counting system that includes these departures, either at counts at (or close to) zero or includes some of them at all. Very possibly, only a Surveillence Department with access to a top notch turncoat (they exist) would snap to the fact that your play is anything but erratic. And these people (probably) don't work for surveillance in the low limit clubs offering extensive single deck action. The person reviewing your play is (probably) doing it with the knowledge gleaned from Bill Zender's Card Counting for the Casino Executive and its Hi-Lo tables. They'll be looking for the garden variety counter who moves his bet a lot and doesn't do things like hitting 13 & 14 v small in neutral counts, hitting 17 v A in neutral counts, standing on 14 v TA in neutral counts, standing 13 v T in neutral counts, doubling 7 v 4 or 8 v 3, soft Doubling A9 V 45, soft doubling A7 thru A2 V 2, splitting 33 V every upcard, et cetera, et cetera.
These plays don't come up constantly, the hit/stand being more frequent, but doubling when their book says you shouldn't, and not doubling when it says you should pays you two ways: your financial expectation, and their opinion of you as a customer.
Trust me when I tell you there's much more to it. They aren't actually giving away money. And you have do do your own research. But, if you have no other value attached to your time, the opportunity, such as it is, is there.
.95 with separate aces
This count is eighth on Arnold Snyder's list of 100 point counts.
my favorite
is to count correctly and bet according to the correct count. :) I don't do side-counts (and I mainly play DD games anyway so the SD stuff is not as applicable. I once played around with the ace side-count, which helps on some playing decisions, and on insurance decisions, but decided it just wasn't worth the trouble. I even thought about changing systems, but again decided that the gain might not be worth the learning curve and extra mistakes I would likely make since I don't play weekly or even monthly at times...
Thanks Guys (Very nice post, Igor) (nt)
(Message Deleted by Poster)
"stiffing you on the payout" - ??? What do you mean? A 6:5 game?? (nt)
(Message Deleted by Poster)
Don't treat all BJ's as 11
Even on a single deck 6:5 game. What you are doing when you double is trading a hand with a guaranteed 120% payout for a significantly lower chance of winning. The trade off is not worth it. Not even for cover.
No need to be confused
"I thought that a half deck left to play with no aces having been played was the perfect time to bet the farm! No?"
If the count is plus. You're correct. You would bet big if the count was plus and all the aces were unplayed with 1/2 deck left. It sounds like Naessi doesn't exactly understand that when you get a blackjack you get paid 3:2, and when the dealer gets a BJ you lose only your original bet. I would love to trade blackjacks all day long with the dealer!
Why waster your time with 6:5? It's idiotic to always double down on a BJ!
Are you fucking nuts? Why waste your time on a lousy game? It's stupid to always double down on a blackjack. Let me guess, you also split fives? But hey, it's your money to lose. Quit giving out wrong information. Pick up several books, read them, and learn how to play correctly. Bootlegger recently published an excellent book.
Wow.
Why the venom? He asked for advice on SINGLE DECK games. Due to the fact that I know of ONE casino in Vegas that offers 3:2 on a single deck, I assumed he would be dealing with a 6:5 situation. I personally prefer double deck, but again, I was responding on-topic.
I never claimed to be an expert, I simply stated something that *I* feel is a good idea. You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing to this discussion other than flames and insults. If you disagree, fine, but make your case without making yourself look like an ass, kthx.
Sorry for the tone
But tempers rise when this ripoff game gets discussed.
Doubling-down on a 6:5 blackjack, is mathematically a move which will cost you more than just accepting the (miserly) payout.
It is really better not to go anywhere near this horrible game.
A losing proposition
Assuming the dealer has already checked for a blackjack if he has an Ace or a 10 up, your expectation for holding a natural is 1.2. The best case scenario in a single-deck game for doubling an Ace-10 is in the S17 game when the dealer has a 6 up. The expectation for doubling that hand is 0.682. On average, taking the 6:5 payout is more than twice as profitable as doubling down. Which means you shouldn't be playing the 6:5 game if counting is your advantage play.
I'm not
Naessi makes it sound like this is the correct thing to do. It's not. In an above post he states that he waits until there is a depletion of aces and a high count before he bets big because he is afraid of the dealer getting a blackjack. This is incorrect as well. Instead of telling the guy to avoid playing 6:5, he gives advice that is absolutely horrible. Naessi needs to do some studying, reading before he goes off giving advice to newbies.