AOII/Blackjack for Blood Question

What do you that use AOII think of this?

Per Carlson's book, BJFB, AOII uses Ace side counts in betting strategy only. Carlson's logic is that the extra effort for anything but betting strategy is not worthwhile...however, if I am counting ACE's anyway there must be some use of that side count information for adjusting playing strategy, or what is called a multiparameter adjustment. Hi-Opt I and the Gordon counts often are used with these adjustments, and I would think AOII can be too, at least in a limited number of situations. What do you folks think?

I must admit that tampering with Carlson's tables/recommendations seems to me like altering the DNA molecule--one does not know of the possible consequences.

I've read some stuff on side count adjustments, enough to know that 6's & 7's are usually better than aces to side count for adjustments. (Griffin, Theroy of Blackjack, & Humble, World's Greatest Blackjack Book, plus other stuff on this site). I believe an adjustment to running count for playing strategy would be most appropriate when faced with a double down situation, particularly an 11 or 10 versus an Ace or Ten. Upon the recommendation of other's here at this site, I used the excel spreadsheet found at BJMath to come up with some adjustments to running count. For the following instances the below adjustments would seem to be worthwhile:

10 v 10, make double play at TC 4 less than normal (ie TC 5 instead of 9) when there is one more ace than normal left in the deck.

10 v A, make double down play at TC 1.5 less than normal (ie TC 6.5 instead of 8) when there is one more ace than normal

11 v A (alos v 2-4, 7-10) if there is an extra ace, make the double down play when the TC is +2 higher than recommended.

10 v 16, for an extra ace, hit when TC is +1 instead of normal 0.

All four of those situations are members of the I18. So, maybe the plays are good ones?

I appreciate your feedback.

Ooops! Forgot to say that I would adjust running count by 2 for each ace short or in excess of the 1/13 ratio of ace to cards dealt. Also, I am applying the adjustment in only single/double deck games with a H17.

Nice questions/proposals. I have had them myself. In no particular order:

(1) In AOII, the Ace-"sc" is kept primarily for Betting purposes. Each "extra" Ace adds +2 to the TC (for SD), as the Ace is the Most valuable card for Betting. Conversely, -2 for Ace-deficiency. Agree that for most of us, too cumbersome for anything past DD, though still valuable to those who can do it.

(2) Since the Ace will Never Bust a properly played hand, it has no value for Play changes.

(3) Certainly you relate some valid concerns, such as would you DD 11 in an Ace-rich deck if the Ct. was + and you were facing a Scare Card? YES! In a Deeply dealt SD, with no Aces played, and only 8 cards remaining, it probably deserves further study, but in "real play" would rarely be an operant concern.

(4) The Ace does have "Insurance" value equal to 2-9. For Ins. purposes only, the Ace-sc can help make one make more proper decisions; deficiency/surplus would be counted as -1/+1 only for that "second" to make Ins. decision.

Hope this helps.

phantom007.

I appreciate your comment, and particularly the information about insurance. It is something I had not considered.

I agree that an ace adjustment has limited usefulness, and only in certain instances would it be of any use--and then only as a "tie-breaker".

Still, BJ is like the supermarket business, it has small profit margins on each transaction (hand), but it is a volume business (lots of transactions/hands). Thus, a relatively small improvement in percentage will have a large effect due to the large number of hands one plays. And as the Ace playing adjustment has little marginal effort (learn a limited number of indices), I think I will incorporate into my play in the limited fashion mentioned. Again, thanks for the information on the insurance effect.

Sincerely

Kid

phantom007,

I'm puzzled by your fourth recommendation for use of the Ace side count: (4) The Ace does have "Insurance" value equal to 2-9. For Ins. purposes only, the Ace-sc can help make one make more proper decisions; deficiency/surplus would be counted as -1/+1 only for that "second" to make Ins. decision.

Since in AOII the ace is not reckoned in the RC (or TC), why would you adjust the count to make an insurance decision? For example, say you're playing SD. With half a deck remaining and a RC of 4 (so TC of 8, which is greater than 6), BJFB recommends taking insurance versus the dealer's Ace, since on average more than 1/3 of the remaining deck will be X's. What difference does it make whether the non-X's remaining in the deck are Aces or not?

Am I overlooking something here?

Dog Hand

When I play SD, I usually use AOII, and keep an Ace-side ct., and often track the 8's as well...A's for Betting and Ins., 8's for Ins. only. In practice, I usually take Ins. at any TC above +4...Carlson recommends above +5, presumably to guard against "over-insuring" due to unequal values of non-10 cards...with AOII, #3-5's out of the deck would yield a +6 RC; #3 2's & 3's would also yield a +6 RC. In the latter, Ins. would be a good bet, in the former a breakeven situation.

Whatever, in my simply mind, Ins. at +5 is usually breakeven, and if nothing else, gives the impression to "Insuring too much".

However, as I interpret use of Carlson's suggestions, surplus(unplayed) Aces are Great for Betting, and not good for Ins.

For example, at the mid-deck level, the Dealer shows an up-Ace. Ins. should be taken at TC above +5. However, if this was the First Ace out of the deck, then there would be a surplus of one Ace, in the remaining half-deck, i.e., a "non-X" card.

Therefore, I would Subtract 1 from the Ct., for JUST that instant to make the Ins. decision, since there is a Surplus non-X card in the deck. So in this case, a +5 TC would NOT cause me to take Ins. (using Carlson's #'s).

Conversely, in the same scenario, i.e., Ace-up at mid-SD, but this Ace is the 4th seen, then there is a "Relative Deficiency" of non-X cards in the remaining deck, to the degree of 2....therefore, I would add +2 to TC when making Ins. decision.

The 8's can be handled the same way. Surplus Played = +1 for Ins., surplus in the deck = -1.

Occasionally, the following scenario will develop: mid-deck, up-Ace, TC = 0, this is the 4th Ace-out, and ALL of the 8's are out as well.

Insurance?

YES!

Hope this helps clarify what I posted above. BJFB is a little "vague" in this section, so the "above" is pretty much what I deduced from the reading.

phantom007.

phantom007,

Thanks for explaining! Your idea is intriguing!

Just to clarify, though... in your explanation you talked about adjusting the TC. Did you by chance mean the RC?

Dog Hand