When counting at Spanish 21 or blackjack and the running count exactly equals the standing index, does the player benefit more by standing or hitting?
I think I know the answer. Hitting would lower the variance by allowing the possiblity of a push. And lower variance is always good for a counter. Do you agree?
"When counting at Spanish 21 or blackjack and the running count exactly equals the standing index,"
Did you mean to say the true count?
"does the player benefit more by standing or hitting?"
By definition, mathematically, it doesn't matter, but the concept is that, if the TC EQUALS or exceeds the index, you stand.
"I think I know the answer. Hitting would lower the variance by allowing the possibility of a push. And lower variance is always good for a counter. Do you agree?"
Not quite. Hitting also uses up cards, so, if the index that we're talking about is a positive one, indicating a favorable situation for the player, you would do best not to use up any cards by hitting.
Don
"'...running count exactly equals the standing index,'
Did you mean to say the true count?"
Yes; I meant to type true count.
I get it now--when the true count is high, the true count matches the standing index, and the cut card is to appear soon, the value of an extra round would outweigh the value of any decreased variance. But earlier in the 8-deck or 6-deck shoe, could the reverse be possible? (Could the benefit of reducing the variance then outweigh the benefit of not using up cards?)
"But earlier in the 8-deck or 6-deck shoe, could the reverse be possible? (Could the benefit of reducing the variance then outweigh the benefit of not using up cards?)"
Using even an extra card or two never seems like a good idea to me. If you decide to decrease the variance, instantaneously, for that one hand, I don't see the value. Your bet is already made. It isn't as if you're going to make a larger bet because variance is lower and optimal bet size is increased. Your bet is already in the circle.
Don
