My K.O. book gives the value of cards removed from a single deck. For instance, the value of a Five is +0.67%. Do I take it to mean that if I remove ONE Five from a single deck, that I would have a small edge using only basic strategy?
Would start with Theory of Blackjack by Peter Griffin. Betting EORs are given for the Standard DOA game, the common Reno d10 h17 game, and playing decisions for DOA games.
Bjmath.com use the site search engine to check where things might be relocated can add EORs for late surrender.
The site that Grinder has might still have EORs for doubling down after splitting pairs decisions.
What can you do with them?
You can develope algebraic approximation indexes for balanced and unbalanced counts as well as side counts and finding out how much your edge changes for every true count change. These can be used to find risk-adverse indexes as well.
Why are they useful instead of just using SBA or CV?
These programs are often miss-used, as magic "black boxes" of information. Using the EORs can show you simply how different counts measure different things for different decisions. The best example of this was a thread here about a year ago when Cacarulo was noting some things about simulating the 11 v. 7 doubling decision index. It differed in strange ways with different numbers of decks just using the 11 as a total. But what really happened was that everyone neglected how ALL (with the minor exception of games where you can re-double down or double down with more than 2 card totals) double down decisions deal with real 2 card initial totals. What took large 20 Billion hand+ simulations to examine took only inspection with algebraic approximation methods to confirm this difference.
So EORs are useful tools and not just for strange people who don't wish to use the SBA, or CV, or Blackjack 6,7,8, or BCA programs. You can even base a new simulator to exactly find expectations by noting how EOR based methods can transform any set of EORs to any counting system, and know exactly how any count would have performed with that same simulation output, which is included in Table Hopper's new blackjack analysis program.
So you are far from cheap or deranged to ask about EORs or focus on them!
If you play single deck with standard rules (H17), you would have an edge on the first round if the burn card was a 5.
You have a slight edge with single deck games even as bad as d10 h17. I just wanted to assure you that your focus or examining EORs on your own had much merit!
Gosh... it doesn't seem like it would be that strong! Is this part of the reason why single deck has a greater basic strategy expectation than say six decks. In other words, for the same "advantage in a six deck game, you would "need" 6 Five's to be removed from the shoe? Or would this even be enough? This post has got me thinking, right or wrong. thanks...
"Would start with Theory of Blackjack by Peter Griffin."
Haven't read it.
"Bjmath.com use the site search engine to check where things might be relocated can add EORs for late surrender.
The site that Grinder has might still have EORs for doubling down after splitting pairs decisions."
Been there, done that... both highly informative!
"You can develope algebraic approximation indexes for balanced and unbalanced counts as well as side counts and finding out how much your edge changes for every true count change. These can be used to find risk-adverse indexes as well."
I'm not sure that I "buy" this line of inquiry, but I'm not outruling it. What "algebraic approximations" are you talking about?
"So you are far from cheap or deranged to ask about EORs or focus on them!"
Well... that IS debatable. Just a "thought" that occured to me. Thanks, Clarke...
quark...
Is not just for the "cheap" but allows you to look under the hood of how an index finds the best decisions to make. It is based upon how to map how a set of EORs wil equate to an actual count index.
