Hard 17 vs Ace Surrender

    Both Stanford and Don S, have tables which show that the off the top EV for standing on hard 17 vs. A is <-50% when the dealer hits hard 17.  I believe that's the case for all 1-8 decks.  So why doesn't Stanford's BS say to surrender that hand, which is only -50% by definition?   Furthermore, Stanford doesn't even show an index number for that decision.

In the earlier days, probably there were no Hit-17 games, so no surrender existed for hard 17 vs. A in these earlier Stand-17 games.

Please ignore aceside's answer, above. It's beyond preposterous to say that H17 games didn't exist from the very beginning. Just more foolishness.

In your question, you meant to write "dealer hits soft 17," not hard 17. In any event, if you're referring to Professional BJ, on page 24, Wong explains that the one and only BS that he presents in the book is a "generic" version, and that, technically, it is for multi-deck, dealer stands on soft 17. That's why the surrender doesn't appear.

But it's not true that he doesn't show an index number for the play. See, for example, page 261, where 2 is given as a reverse index number (indicated by the *). You surrender if the TC < +2; otherwise, you stand.

Clear?

Don

This is clear to me, but still I’d like to say something slightly different. For an H17 game, the basic strategy for hard 17 vs. A is surrender and the surrender/stand index is at TC=+2, so the deviation of stand from basic strategy occurs when TC>=+2;  therefore, there is really no reverse index here.  It’s just a normal deviation index. 

   Thanks, Don.  I'm still looking for the game where the dealer hits hard 17:),   When I find it, I don't think I'll surrender anything.

   My copy of Professional Blackjack (1994 edition) doesn't show any index number for that play.

   Aceside, it is a reverse index because correct surrender strategy is usually to surrender above the index number.

On your first point, I won’t dig.

On your second point, I’d like to say a little more, though.  Let’s fix to the H17 game. The basic strategy for these five hands are all surrender:

16 vs. 9,

16 vs. T,

16 vs. A,

15 vs. T,

15 vs. A.

When deviating from basic strategy, these situations are all the same, hit/surrender as the count increases.
 

However, the situation in 17 vs. A is very different because it is surrender/stand now, so it’s really not the reverse of hit/surrender.  Therefore, I still insist that the surrender/stand index of TC=+2 is an ordinary deviation index, not a reverse index. 

Mine is also the 1994 edition, and the top of page 261 (surrender indices for the H17 shoe game) clearly shows the +2* reverse surrender index. Strange that you wouldn't have that.

Don

You can insist all you want, but your understanding of index numbers is all wrong. Indices exist for making ONE play; the "otherwise do this" part is simply to help people remember what the alternative would be. +2* (reverse index) is for surrender. Period. You surrender if the TC is < +2. Period.

There is also a stand index for 17 vs. A for the H17 game. It's -5. This means, If the TC >= -5 (and surrender isn't offered), stand.

For all index numbers, the universal meaning is: insure, surrender, split, double, or stand (in that order!) if the TC is greater than or equal to the index. So, do you now understand why surrendering if the TC is LESS than +2 is a reverse index?

Just say yes, because I'm not going to waste any more bandwidth on this, especially since Rhonda is the OP, and she already understands this simple concept.

Don

   My page 261 does is blank for 10-7 and 9-8 vs Ace.  I am unable to paste a picture of the page here.

Ha! You don't have to! I have it. There were TWO different versions of the 1994 edition, and I have both of them. One is on my bookshelf, which I no longer refer to, and the other is on my desk, along with my book and Griffin's Theory of Blackjack, because, well, I refer to them constantly. Clearly, Wong made some revisions and additions for the second edition of the 1994 version, and that's the one that has the 2*. Mystery solved!

Don

  Thanks Don! What other revisions are noteworthy?

Let me recap what you say above.  In an H17 game, the hand 17 vs. A strategy is: 

If TC < -5, Hit,

If -5 =< TC < +2, Surrender,

If TC >= +2, Stand.

Therefore, the surrender index for 17 vs. A is TC = -5 and the stand index is TC=+2. There is no reverse index in this situation. Again, in my opinion, the index at TC=+2 is an ordinary deviation index for stand. 

My God, you are dense! But, I'm dumber for responding. What you've written above is wrong. Reread carefully what I wrote above.

You have to FIRST specify if the game offers surrender or not. Let's say it does NOT. Then the standing index for 17 v. A is -5. I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you what that means.

If the game DOES offer surrender, then the reverse index for surrender is +2. You surrender if the index is less than +2. Period. The -5 doesn't apply, if we're discussing a two-card holding. If the TC is greater than +2, you don't surrender; instead, you stand. Of course, if you have a multi-card 17, then even if the game offers surrender, only the -5 stand index is relevant.

That's it. I'm done. Have the last word.

Don

Awful lot of pages! Not sure I'd be able to tell you that. You'll have to wait until the ultimate edition of this comes out, from HP, perhaps later this year. It's a huge volume (which I proofread) that combines Pro BJ, Blackjack Secrets, and Basic BJ into one volume! Big project.

Don

I have a related question, to make sure I understand the index numbers in "The Hi-Lo Card Counting System - A complete Guide" correctly. Im fairly new to this topic.

Table 1.1 has the following entry for 8,8 vs Dealer A: 

(-5 < 1) r 

-1 p

this is obviously always a two card holding, so am I correct in thinking that I surrender with a TC of -5 up to 0, split with a TC of 1 or higher and hit with a TC of -6 or lower?

Thanks for your time

   I appreciate your responses, Don.  I certainly didn't expect you to go through all those pages.  Just asking if you noticed any other major strategy differences between the two 1994 editions.

Yes, correct. Apologies for the somewhat confusing format. It's not easy to fit all the information into a small box.

Now, if you can't surrender (rules don't permit it, or it's one of the split hands and not the original), do you now understand what to do? Again, rather complicated. Dave's graphs are extremely helpful in visualizing this.

Don

Thank you, I appreciate the quick response.

With an unsplittable 8,8 I would just ignore the top line and only consider the "-1 p". That should mean at -1 or higher we split and at -2 or lower we hit. Although I must admit Im not 100% sure that hitting at -2 or lower is correct instead of standing. That I just assume because negative counts usually favour hitting over standing and that would be the answer for any other hard 16

Right. But, in addition, if you can't split, and the count is +4 or higher, you stand. 😊

Don

What’s the point of digging into publications? People have different math and different definitions anyway, so we just believe they are plausibly correct. Blackjack is a gambling in the first place. If somebody says playing blackjack is a business, that must be a joke. 
 

Also, I notice rhonda is the first ever poster who has been indenting the first line of their posts. We usually do not do that.  Keep this place rude.