Thanks. Have one version of your book, don't think its the one being referenced. Guess RoR not an exact Gaussion distribution. Close enough for explanation purposes for me. I should have indicated mean (average) being same as expectation (EV). Assuming one is playing a positive expectation game.
Thanks. Have one version of your book, don't think its the one being referenced. Guess RoR not an exact Gaussion distribution. Close enough for explanation purposes for me. I should have indicated mean (average) being same as expectation (EV). Assuming one is playing a positive expectation game.
You really need BJA3.
ROR is an exponential function; EV is normally distributed. Not the same thing.
But, again, understand that even a Gaussian distribution has slightly less than 5% in BOTH tails combined, for two SDs. If you're talking just about losing, then you're concerned only with the left tail (and thus half the probablity), not both.
Don
In casino, as a rule, the easier the game, the bigger the house edge.
If you asked me some 20 years ago: WHAT SHOULD SMART PEOPLE PLAY IN CASINO? I would have answered without a doubt: blackjack. But that answer is no longer correct. The correct answer today should be Spanish 21. The reason is simple: Just by comparing the basic strategy of Spanish 21 and of blackjack, Spanish 21 is obviously much, much harder than blackjack.
Once a counter has learned the Spanish 21 basic strategy, counting Spanish 21 is actually much easier if the counter finds a workable card counting system. How could it be so?
Reasons are many, Automatic Monkey noted less heat, which is so true now, but may change in the future. These two reasons, however, would be forever true and indisputable:
I hope this difference between card counting Spanish 21 and blackjack will last forever, but not too sure, that is "the 6:5 decease" is only a blackjack decease, and will not spread over to Spanish 21 tables.
I played my first 6:5 blackjack on a cruise double-deck blackjack. Given it was DD, and on a cruise ship, I thought, it was not great, but tolerable. But recently, I found 6:5 blackjack has spread like a contagion.
6:5 is no longer a localized decease afflicting the players and card counters plying their trade at some tourist destination areas like Las Vegas only.
Last summer, I crossed into Canada heartland -- Toronto and vicinities. I did not play one single blackjack hand, because every blackjack table was 6:5. With that, I wondered if there was any more need for me to refresh the blackjack deviation indices before going to a casino next time.
To sell your books, you must convince the audience here. In Spanish 21, player surrenders 17 vs. A at higher true counts, where higher bets are placed; and player hits 17 vs. A at lower true counts, where lower bets are placed. But, you are saying the opposite. What say you?
Moraine Always Says And Plays By The Book. There are only two printed books on Spanish 21 card counting:
For the card counting book using Hi-Lo, see p. 152.
For the card counting book using AceMT, see p.98.
PS to aceside: If you wonder why it's so, the 3/3/2025 post by Automatic Monkey offers some explanations.
Well, I’m the only poster on this forum who have been saying something constructive to you; however, I believe you are chasing your own tail quoting other authors. My book is Gronbog.
Regardless, I’ve looked up Walker’s book about this. She says the hit/surrender index for 17 vs. A is TC = -6 using her Hi-Lo, while her neutral TC = -4. This agrees with what I posted above. Do you agree?
Well, I’m the only poster on this forum who have been saying something constructive to you; however, I believe you are chasing your own tail quoting other authors. My book is Gronbog.
Regardless, I’ve looked up Walker’s book about this. She says the hit/surrender index for 17 vs. A is TC = -6 using her Hi-Lo, while her neutral TC = -4. This agrees with what I posted above. Do you agree?
She did not, but good luck, good luck!
For this hand of 17 vs. A, there should be a surrender/stand index too, but it seems like Walker doesn’t say anything about this.
For this hand of 17 vs. A, there should be a surrender/stand index too, but it seems like Walker doesn’t say anything about this.
Pages 151-152. All you have to do is read.
Don
For this hand of 17 vs. A, there should be a surrender/stand index too, but it seems like Walker doesn’t say anything about this.
Pages 151-152. All you have to do is read.
Don
I've looked into these pages in this book. The author does not give a Surrender/Stand index for 17 vs. A; however, she does give a Forfeit/Stand index of TC=+2 for this hand. Do you think the Surrender/Stand index and the Forfeit/Stand index are the same thing?
Sigh. I can't read for you. The surrender indices are at the bottom of pages 151 and 152. My last response. Silly discussion.
Don
Ok, I’ve got some idea about surrender indices in Spanish 21. We move on.
However, I find your explanation about Risk of Ruin (RoR) very detailed and very impressive! I still want to bring up the win rate and loss rate in Blackjack. In almost all casino games, when you win, you often win a lot more than even money; when you lose, you may lose less than even money. So, how is this part treated in RoR?
Variance is part of the ROR formula.
Don
For this hand of 17 vs. A, there should be a surrender/stand index too, but it seems like Walker doesn’t say anything about this.
Pages 151-152. All you have to do is read.
Don
I've looked into these pages in this book. The author does not give a Surrender/Stand index for 17 vs. A; however, she does give a Forfeit/Stand index of TC=+2 for this hand. Do you think the Surrender/Stand index and the Forfeit/Stand index are the same thing?
No, consider this: When a player surrenders, the player still has the option to hit in addition to stand, but the hit option is no longer available in the forfeit situations.
For 17 vs. A, there are three possible decisions to make: hit/surrender, surrender/stand, and hit/stand. However, at a higher true count, there is only one decision to make, that is, surrender/stand, because stand gives a better outcome now. It’s impossible to have these three decisions: surrender/hit, stand/surrender, and stand/hit. So, I still tend to believe that the surrender/stand index and the forfeit/stand index are the same thing here.
However, I’d like to hear what Gronbog may say about this. He wrote a book on these indices, so he must know this.
I have occasionally seen "forfeit" used to mean "surrender" which is what I believe aceside is asking.
In Katarina book, “forfeit” means double down rescue, and “surrender” means concede half bet on first two player cards.
My question. The author does not give a surrender/stand index for the hand 17 vs. A. However, she gives a forfeit/stand index of TC=+2 for this hand. Can we use the forfeit/stand index for the surrender/stand index?
In Katarina book, “forfeit” means double down rescue, and “surrender” means concede half bet on first two player cards.
My question. The author does not give a surrender/stand index for the hand 17 vs. A. However, she gives a forfeit/stand index of TC=+2 for this hand. Can we use the forfeit/stand index for the surrender/stand index?
I gave "NO" as an answer yesterday (3/16), and my answer remains the same today. Also, pages 94-96 of AceMT may help questions like these.
Your answer is always too short on my math questions. I understand you want to sell your books, but you need to convince the audience here.
A Spanish deck in fact is a regular blackjack deck with four 10-valued card removed, having a -4.33 TC at the get-go. When running into hand where a player does not know how to play the Spanish 21 hand (such as aceside's 17 vs. A situation), the player may consult with a blackjack book having indices at the deep negative territory. Often-time, the correct play becomes obvious right away.
What? I know you are not confident in Spanish 21 because you just said something really off. I’m not going to point out. You figure out the part yourself.
