By definition, ENHC takes all bets when the dealer has blackjack. The other variants are named for how any extra bets are handled.
OBO = Original Bets Only (equivalent to North American hole card games)
OBBO = Original + Busted Bets Only
By definition, ENHC takes all bets when the dealer has blackjack. The other variants are named for how any extra bets are handled.
OBO = Original Bets Only (equivalent to North American hole card games)
OBBO = Original + Busted Bets Only
By definition, ENHC takes all bets when the dealer has blackjack. The other variants are named for how any extra bets are handled.
OBO = Original Bets Only (equivalent to North American hole card games)
OBBO = Original + Busted Bets Only
Oh, ok. Wanting to check for sure if Kubrick's game is ENHC or could it be one of these variations.
Your book version is too old. Use my newer version numbers for double 11v10.
What table number is it in the 1994 edition, and what is the heading of the table? Just wanting to check we are comparing the same thing. Thanks.
I have both versions to examine. It is Table 30 in the 1994 version. In both versions, the table are titled the same “modification to appendixes when you lose all to a natural,” but the doubling down indices for the hand 11v10 are different, @+4 in 1994 and @+12 in 1981. So, let us rely on the newer one.
For doubling 11 vs T in an ENHC game, +4 would be the EV-maximizing index and +12 would be the risk-averse index. I don't know if that's what Wong was thinking when publishing +12 in the 1981 edition. Don and I discuss this play in our book The Hi-Lo Card Counting system: A Complete Guide to Index Play.
Another difference between the two editions is that Wong used truncation for true count conversion in the 1994 edition, so all of the negative indices are higher by 1 in that edition.
Your book version is too old. Use my newer version numbers for double 11v10.
What table number is it in the 1994 edition, and what is the heading of the table? Just wanting to check we are comparing the same thing. Thanks.
I have both versions to examine. It is Table 30 in the 1994 version. In both versions, the table are titled the same “modification to appendixes when you lose all to a natural,” but the doubling down indices for the hand 11v10 are different, @+4 in 1994 and @+12 in 1981. So, let us rely on the newer one.
Sounds good, thanks for finding that.
For doubling 11 vs T in an ENHC game, +4 would be the EV-maximizing index and +12 would be the risk-averse index. I don't know if that's what Wong was thinking when publishing +12 in the 1981 edition. Don and I discuss this play in our book The Hi-Lo Card-Counting system: A Complete Guide to Index Play.
Another difference between the two editions is that Wong used truncation for true count conversion in the 199 edition, so all of the negative indices are higher by 1 in the 1994 edition.
Thanks, that helps to explain this.
