vs. a dealer 10? I was looking at basic strategy and if there is late surrender it says to surrender and stand if you cannot surrender. The I18 indices agree with this, since the index number for this situation is 0. However, the basic strategy for a 6D, h17 game with no surrender says to hit...
Thanks for any input
"vs. a dealer 10? I was looking at basic strategy and if there is late surrender it says to surrender and stand if you cannot surrender."
Wherever you saw BS to stand, if you can't surrender, that's wrong, unless referring to a multi-card 16. What is your source for BS?
"The I18 indices agree with this, since the index number for this situation is 0."
You incorrectly assume that BS is predicated on a count of zero. It isn't. So, the I18 indices don't agree with BS to stand, because indices have nothing to do with BS!
"However, the basic strategy for a 6D, h17 game with no surrender says to hit..."
You just said, above, that BS said to stand if you can't surrender. I'd say you're a bit confused.
Don
I was looking at Ken Smith's website for the BS. And it makes sense now because for a game with surrender, it says to stand or surrender. Presumably if you can't surrender under those rules that would imply a multi-card 16, and I didn't make that connection before.
Also I clearly made a faulty assumption about your I18, sorry about that. I had thought a 0 count would correlate to BS decisions, but I see it does not, is that correct?
Let me know if I have any of this wrong:
On a 16 with two cards according to BS, surrender if possible
On a 16 with three cards according to BS, surrender if possible, or else stand
On a 16 with two cards according to BS and no surrendering, hit
On a 16 with two cards according to I18 on a 0 count and no surrendering, stand
Thanks for the response
There recently was such a discussion of whether to hit or stand with 16 versus 10 in 6 deck game. According to ET Fan�s methodology, the precise index is 0.0442806163789197. But this calculation takes in account removing of dealer�s up card (10) only. If we include the cards comprising all possible player�s 16s, we could get a slightly different, and for sure more precise, result. But for now, I think we should hit our 16 with tc of 0.
Blackjack Rookie
P.S. Here is a link to previous discussion.
I recognize that I made a false assumption in correlating BS to your I18. However, if the I18 and all indices are meant to be guides to strategy deviations from BS, then why would an index of 0 not correlate to BS decisions?
Because, not always cards comprising player�s hand and dealer�s up card have tc of 0. For example, with 10, 6 or 9, 7 vs 10 the tc is not 0, but -1*52/309 (-0.1683).
taking into account all the cards seen and comprising a dealer's upcard and player's hand, why doesn't a TC=0 strategy correspond to BS? And I realize they are different things but aren't all indices and the I18 meant to be deviations in strategy from BS?
"Let me know if I have any of this wrong:
"On a 16 with two cards according to BS, surrender if possible."
So far, so good.
"On a 16 with three cards according to BS, surrender if possible, or else stand."
Well, yes, but don't hold your breath trying to surrender a three-card hand.
"On a 16 with two cards according to BS and no surrendering, hit."
Right.
"On a 16 with two cards according to I18 on a 0 count and no surrendering, stand."
Technicality: if the RUNNING count is precisely zero, you should probably hit, but the play is so close that it makes no difference whatsoever. On the other hand, if you are flooring the TC, such that zero means anything from 0 to just below +1, then by all means, stand.
Don
"But for now, I think we should hit our 16 with tc of 0."
No, that isn't true. What ET Fan determined was that, if the RUNNING count is precisely zero, such that the TC is precisely zero, then hit. But, we use TCs by buckets that are usually one integer wide. TC = 0 means: 0<=TC<+1.
So, the correct strategy remains: If you are using floored indices, stand if TC>=0, with the understanding that the TC can be considered to be equal to zero even if it isn't precisely zero. As an exception, if it is precisely zero, (i.e., RC = 0) then hit.
Do you understand the distinction?
Don
"taking into account all the cards seen and comprising a dealer's upcard and player's hand, why doesn't a TC=0 strategy correspond to BS?"
Because it isn't intended to be! It ISN'T the definition of BS. A single example should suffice for you to understand the distinction.
Whether 6-deck or 1-deck, the Hi-Lo index for doubling 9 v. 2 is +1. So, if you wanted TC = 0 to correspond to BS, then you would declare that, in both cases, BS for the play is to hit. But it isn't! It's hit for 6-deck but double for 1-deck.
"And I realize they are different things"
Are you sure that you realize that?
"but aren't all indices and the I18 meant to be deviations in strategy from BS?"
Yes. But, again, BS has NO connection to a TC of zero. BS removes the player's cards, the dealer's upcard, and determines the play that maximizes e.v. There is never a mention of the true count, and certainly no assumption of a TC of zero. You need to simply drop the notion from your mind.
Don
Many confuse the two when referring to zero. Don has made it perfectly clear. Any one truly studying BJA3 would get most answers to their questions. But when it comes to hitting or standing on 16 v X it really doesn't matter what you do you're going to lose your money.
Dear Sir,
I agree completely with your expert opinion.
The �hit� decision may prevail only If we use truncating approach.
When Don Schlesinger speaks, we should listen!
Regards,
Blackjack Rookie
