I think this is leading nowhere
"I wrote:
"That question is easy for me to answer (and hopefully easy for you to understand).
"1. I know that at a true count of zero, the correct strategy is to hit.
"2. I know that the true count is always zero for a fair, infinite deck game.
"Putting these 2 facts together allowed me to easily answer the question at hand: �What is the correct play (stand or hit) for 16 "versus 10?�"
We're not arguing about how easy it was for you to answer; we're arguing about how wrong your reasoning was. I already furnished a counterexample, above. I guess you either missed it or chose to ignore it. To wit:
1. I know that, at a true count of zero, the correct strategy is to double A,4 v. 4.
2. I know that the true count is always zero for a fair, infinite deck game.
One would assume that you would now continue:
"Putting these 2 facts together allowed me to easily answer the question at hand: �What is the correct play (double or hit) for A,4 versus 4?"
And, of course, you would get the wrong answer!
"Don replied (referring to statement 1):
"You state this as some kind of universal truth, applicable, in advance, to all numbers of decks. Clearly, that isn't true. So, you must be stating it only for infinite deck, otherwise the statement is patently false."
"While it is true that my spreadsheet only �proved� this statement for an infinite deck game (that�s the reason that I was comfortable answering the question in the first place), I do believe the statement to be true for any number of decks. (I could be wrong.)"
COULD?? Of course you're wrong! What do you think the multiple-deck index is for 16 v. 10? Why do you think I've been hammering you about it all along? The index is Z-E-R-O! And, the interpretation of ALL such indices is: STAND if the TC equals or exceeds the index!
"If it isn�t true, please give me an example of the number of decks required for it not to be true."
It's that you don't understand what you're supposed to do with an index, and I find that rather alarming. For hit-stand decisions, you STAND if you have attained the index or greater.
"At a count of zero, the odds of changing your 16 into a 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 or busted hand are not dependent on the number of decks. Furthermore, if the dealer needs to hit, his odds of improving or busting are not dependent on the number of decks or whether or not the player hits. The only thing that can change (due to the number of decks) is the interdependence of the player�s actions and dealer�s result. For example, in a single deck game, if the player hits his 16 and receives a 5, the dealer�s probability of getting a 5 (if he needs to hit) has greatly diminished. This interdependence will only be important if the player makes his hand (by receiving a 5 or lower). The removal of low cards will make it more likely for the dealer to bust and thus I believe (again, I could be wrong but you have not convinced me of this) that this would make hitting the 16 even more desirable for fewer decks. By the way, I rarely get involved in the minutia in blackjack. You do realize that the difference in EV that we are talking about is 6 cents for a $100 bet. In the real world, I would say hit any time the count is zero even if it costs 6 cents (rather than earning 6 cents) as the removal (and exposure) of that card (especially in single and double deck) is worth 6 cents to me."
None of the above matters one whit. You can't "Einstein" indices in that primitive manner. You ought to know better. Naturally the single-deck index for 16 v. 10 is much higher. Everyone already knows that. But, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Don wrote:
So, yet again, since it's only for infinite deck, there is zero need to state it at all. There is only one correct BS play for every hand in infinite deck, and I don't need to refer to a count of zero to know what it is. In fact, I don't need to refer to any true count whatsoever.
"Don, you can have a non-zero count in an infinite deck. How do you think I used my spreadsheet to study the effect of card removal?"
I don't have a clue! But, NO, you can't have a TRUE count other than zero. No one has EVER been talking about running count in these discussions. The indices refer to TRUE counts. The TRUE count for infinite deck is zero all the time. You're dividing the running count by infinity, for crying out loud.
"Nevertheless, you are correct in stating that there is only one correct BS play for every hand (not hand total) in an infinite deck (but that is also true for any set number of decks and set of rules)."
You're wrong about "not hand total," too. There are no C-D plays for infinite deck. It would be a contradiction in terms. There is only BS, and it applies only to the (hard) total.
Don wrote:
"So, of two things, one is forcibly true, and you may take your pick: You are making believe that there is a general cause-and-effect relationship between your statements 1 and 2, which is false, OR your statement number one is completely irrelevant and unnecessary in order to conclude statement number two. Take your pick.
"If statement 1 is completely irrelevant and unnecessary, then you must think that I should have answered with:
"Blackjack Rookie, you should hit because I know that the true count is always zero for a fair, infinite deck game."
No, I must think that you should have answered with: "Since there are no indices for infinite deck, nor any other strategy that applies other than basic strategy, the correct play is to hit." PERIOD!!!
"Now, that would have been a ridiculous answer deserving of an �Ahem.� I have enjoyed our discussion."
Thank heaven for small favors! :-)
"I am very busy today and I am leaving for a 10 day vacation tomorrow. If I do not reply today, it will be a long time before I do reply."
I absolutely, positively won't be upset if I don't hear from you for 10 days. :-) have a nice vacation.
Don