DD vs 6dk ?

I seem to win more at the 6 dk with more liberal rules. The DD limited rules such as no das and lousy penetration hurts my game too much.

Any thoughts besides less decks is better?

My feelings.

Examples,

If you have a dd game with the following, LS, 85% pen, D10-11, no das, no buying of a hit for minimum on split aces. S17.

If you have a 6d, LS, doa, das, buy hit for minimum on split aces, 1.5 cut off. S17.

Only play the DD if you count, otherwise play the 6d.

If all rules and pen the same play the game with fewer decks!! Sd and dd I have found to be much more volatile than 6d but sd and dd are all about counting, if they are not good for counting, forget it.

A casino that offers a dd with bad pen and rules are offering a sucker game to the ploppys that know no better.

Joe

But it is real. I hear it's much better in Vegas though.

Joe.

1. Penetration
2. Penetration
3. Penetration

in 2 deck games, look for penetration of 0.8 or better, in other words they deal out all but 41 or 42 cards.

in 6 deck games, look for penetration of 1.5 or better if the rules include late surrender, otherwise look for about 1.0 pen.

these are very rough guidelines only.

Let me play Devil's advocate here for a minute.

Dig if you will a picture....

The running count is up to +4 in a 1D game. Dealer has 6 showing. Player's all stay, except for 3rd base, who has a hard 16. 3rd base hits, drawing a 10 and busting his hand.

The count is now +3...

The dealer turns over his down card, a 10 and now has 16. (count is now +2). He draws a 3 to beat the rest of the table.

How can it be said that the actions of the other player's don't matter, when the play of the person on 3rd base moved the count from +4 to +3?? (The +3 count is disadvantageous when compared to a +4, correct??)

I welcome your comments, as this was the scenario presented to me.

The answer I gave was, the 3rd base player could have received the 3, bringing the count to +5. This was countered by the fact that at a +4 count, the 3rd base player is more likely to receive a 10 card (thus bringing the count down). Hmmmm....

is a bar-chart style graphic that has EV as the vertical scale. Each
bar would show the range of EV for a game with a specific pen with
about 4 bars for each game based on number of decks.

For example, the first bar would show how EV ranges for a 6D game
with 2.0 pen as you progress from a poor set of rules to a good set of
rules. Bars 2 thru 4 would show the same bars for 1.5, 1.0 and .5 pen.

The next set of bars would be for DD beginning with 1.4 pen.. then 3 more bars with 1.1, .8 and .5 pen respectively.

Once you've created some 16 bars, 4 for each xD, one could scan accross such a chart and quickly visualize EV equivalency as it relates to the 3 main factors represented by the bars: Pen, # of decks, and rule progression (rules usually change according to a hierarchy... for example, few venues will take away soft doubles without having also taken away DAS).

Someday, when I've got spare time (ha!), I'll fire up BJRM for a day and do this. It'd go well with my color coded map of Vegas, eh?

Spokanimal

You wrote:
"The running count is up to +4 in a 1D game. Dealer has 6 showing. Player's all stay, except for 3rd base, who has a hard 16. 3rd base hits, drawing a 10 and busting his hand.

The count is now +3...

The dealer turns over his down card, a 10 and now has 16. (count is now +2). He draws a 3 to beat the rest of the table."

Now try this:
The running count is up to +4 in a 1D game. Dealer has 6 showing. Player's all stay, including for 3rd base, who has a hard 16. 3rd base stands, and doesn't draw a 10, busting his hand.

The count is still +4...

The dealer turns over his down card, a 5 and now has 11. (count is now +5). He draws a 10 to beat the rest of the table.

... and of course, 1st base now gets a 3 as his first card on the next round.

Sure, you gave another scenario...but still didn't answer my question.

How can it be said that the actions at 3rd base don't matter when I, and now YOU, just gave two examples where it clearly does??

You gave a situation where 3rd base hit and caused the table to lose.
I took the same situation, even had the cards come out of the deck in the same order, 3rd base made the opposite move, and stood instead of standing, and the table still lost. In other words, the table lost whether 3rd base hit or stood. His actions did not effect the result.

Now we could change the order of the cards (the 3 comes out and then the 10) and given your situation of 3rd base hitting, the table now wins instead of losing. 3rd base makes the same move that you say 'causes' the table to lose, and now he 'causes' the table to win.

And no matter what the count, the odds of the next two cards coming 10-3 or 3-10 are exactly the same, so if 3rd base hits or stands, it doesn't effect the results for the rest of the table. If he stands the dealer could beat your hand or bust, if he hits the dealer is equally likely to beat your hand or bust.

EV doesn't adjust for risk, but we fail to do so at our peril.

Cheers,
sargon

Fine Tuner, I'm sure you posted this by accident "in 2 deck games, look for penetration of 0.8 or better, in other words they deal out all but 41 or 42 cards." What I'm sure you meant is for penetration of sixty percent or better. For eighty percent they'd have to deal all but twenty or twenty-one cards. Hit 'em hard, The Side

any single players actions can affect others...If I get an A7 vs dealer 6 and double and get a 10 I cause the count to drop also. Player mistakes can help or hurt...and they don't have to be only at third base.

It is in the long run that playing "errors" even out. If you are an advantage player...playing for the long run...you should understand that.

Try this real play recently.

I'm playing boxes 6 and 3rd base, max bets out.

Dealer gets a 4 up, box 5 gets two Aces, I get a pair of 9's and a 9/2 on 3rd base.

Player 5 splits aces drawing a 2 on the first split.

He incorrectly hits for a third card and is again incorrectly, due to the one card per split ace rule, given it. Another 2.

Other players question this.

PB says its OK, incorrectly.

Player draws a 3 at next hit, giving him A,2,2,3 against a 4.

He then incorrectly hits again, drawing a 7 and the other players at the table start complaining, at his play, not the dealers and PB's error.

The player stands and draws a 6 to his next split ace.

The dealer now realises his mistake and points out to the PB that he should only get one card per split Ace.

PB gets floorwalker. Floorwalker burns the incorrectly drawn 2,3,7 and 6.

Player hits for the second card to his second ace, getting an 8.

I split the 9's getting another 9, resplit and draw 7, 6, 8 on the three nines.

I double the 9/2 getting another 9.

The dealer turns over an 8 as his hole card and draws, the first ten in 11 cards, busting.

Nice.

http://64.71.133.211/greenchip/archives/POM/index.cgi?read=9908

you'll need greenchip membership to see it, but it's pretty much what you're looking for

80% of 1 deck left undealt.

It never ceases to amaze me that the ignorant, superstitious ploppies who love to play woulda-shoulda-coulda on the 3rd base player's decisions are never bright enough to figure out that if any player at the table had acted differently, the dealer would have gotten a different card.

Certainly a player's decision on any given hand can have an adverse (or favorable) impact on the outcome of that hand, but they do not affect the long-term probability of winning or losing.

He was merely using the CBJN method of describing pen, in which the amount of undealt cards is expressed in decks, or fractions thereof.

In other words, his example of .8 would be about 60% pen in a double deck game. .5 would indicate 75% pen, etc. In a six deck shoe, 1.5 would represent 75% pen.

Why is it done this way in CBJN?

I have no idea.

Get Norm's brilliant new version, CVCX, and your wish is his command!

For chart depiction of your wish, simply see Chapter 10 Summary Pages in BJA.

Don