A few days ago I posted here the question, if some other Software is calculating correct or if only mine, because I calculated for hard 12 against a 4 with a well-balanced 1 deck left in the shoe the better advise is to hit.
While discussion we came to the point were we compared our expected values for that situation. Aside from a bug in my ! Software concerning H17, after I fixed it we all (MathProf, Cacarulo, a third person who emailed me and I) have had the same expected values for that situation:
(S17) Hit:-20.71% Stand:-21.36%
(H17) Hit:-20.74% Stand:-20.81%
These EVs indicate, that you should hit in the discribed situation, but I was told that this situation is simply irrelevant.
I wouldn't say this so hard. I think it is not a bad assumption that the remaining cards in the shoe are well-balanced if you have no information or no more than the visible cards. Composition dependent BS delivers the correct decision only in the first rounds, and is getting slightly worse. "Generic" BS too, but not as much. If you base your decisions on the quantity of the remaining cards in the shoe and assume that the shoe is well-balanced, your decisions will getting round by round slightly better. This could be very complicated and the useful effect at the end is very small.
It is not my goal to develop a new BS or to complicate the situation, it is my goal to develop a good software product that gives Black Jack players and Strategy-developers amaizing possibilities to analyse the game. Perhaps it is not yet ripe, but I am still in the introductory phase. If you download and test it you easiely recognize the big potential it has.
The discussion about hard 12 vs. 4 helped me to find the bug in Black Jack Advocate concerning H17, and I thank you for that. I apologize to have been so sceptical for your values, but beeing sceptical until a prove is simply my nature, especially concerning math. I belive only to statistics, that I falsified myself (This is translated and possibly bad interpreted from my german language, I hope you don't misunderstand it - of course I do not falsify statistics!!!). After the bugfixing I calculated the same values as you, that was the prove I needed. After that I compared a sample of expected values with http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/ev/ev.htm , and except splitting decisions my values correspond exact. Due to the multitude of cards that must be considered in splitting decisions I suppose that Cacarulo's values on that Site for splitting decisions are estimations as well as mine, and that we only used different approaches. The differences between my values and Cacarulo's concerning splitting decisions are very small, I didn't find one that exceeds 1% difference.
If you are interested in Black Jack Advocate, please follow the Link to the Black Jack Advocate Homepage. In the latest version the H17-bug is fixed, as well as a "DLL missing"-Error. You will find an update on my Site, too.