Question about splitting 4s and doubling 8

DD >= #
8v3: +17
8v4: +12
8v5: +7
8v6: +5

Split >= #
44v3: 14
44v4: 7
44v5: 3
44v6: 0

What happens if I have 44v6 at a true count of +6? Should I treat it as an 8 and double since it exceeds the index for 8v6 of +5, or should I split since the index says anything greater than or equal to 0?

For a single deck game where DAS and resplitting aren't allowed, is it better to double or split?

If DAS and RS4 are allowed, like in most DD games, my gut tells me to split instead of double since there is the possibility of resplitting and doubling after splitting.

Splitting takes priority over doubling, if DAS is permitted. If DAS isn't permitted, you never split 4,4.

Don

Your numbers are far too high.The correct unrounded hilo indices for DAS are the following

Double down
8v3 9.3
8v4 6.0
8v5 3.5
8v6 1.6

Split
44v3 8.3
44v4 3.2
44v5 -0.5
44v6 -2.4

Francis Salmon

They are AOII indices, which is the reason for the discrepancy.

I'm surprised that you start out with such a difficult system as the AOII.I respect that but most APs will consider this too much trouble.
The high-low count which combines simplicity and efficiency is the standard here.
That means that whenever you mention figures from another system you have to name it otherwise it will be considered as hilo.

Francis Salmon

you have
Split
44v3 8.3
44v4 3.2
44v5 -0.5
44v6 -2.4

I have
44v3 as 6
44v4 as 1 "big difference" I use this one often
44v5 as -1
44v6 as -4

My concern is mainly the 44v4.I use Stanford Wong's numbers from his book Professional Blackjack.

BoSox

refer to PBJ, 44 vs 4 [DAS 4d] [or 6d ?]
index was +3 at 1994 version,
but +1 at latest version.
i would choose +3 unless at the point 1 deck or less is left in the shoe for 6d.
at the beginning of 6d, for sure i choose +3.

sorry for the confusion,
there was a earlier version which was +3.
i faced the same issue a decade ago, another AP insisted the index was +3 and showed me her old version PBJ.
i suggest u take +3 nowadays, for 6d, 8d;
unless the pen. is very good.

off topic, there is a such thing as floating index, isn't there ?
if there is a such thing as floating adv.

Don't even go there. The differences between an index at one part of the shoe or another simply aren't worth discussing.

Don

It's true that most of Wong's numbers are correct but some are not. Among those are the 4/4 split indices.Let's take 4/4v4:
In a neutral count hitting is roughly 5% better than splitting. This arises not only from my own CA-program for infinite decks but also from Zenfighter's figures for 6D S17 DAS which are published in BJA3.
You can imagine that a single TC-unit can impossbly catch up these 5%. In fact, splitting is catching up 1.6% per TC-unit which brings us to an index of slightly over +3.
I'm pretty confident that this and the other numbers I mentioned are correct.

Francis Salmon

The precise strike number for a given, marginal play is more of a question of faith than anything else.

The actual, hypothetically perfect number can only be determined by simulating the exact conditions of the specific game and bet spread in question. It is highly sensitive to initial conditions.

To get an exact number across the range of conditions you'd have to simulate all of them with a range of spreads, and derive some generic figure. For obvious reasons it is impracical to do that.

It's true that most of Wong's numbers are correct but some are not. Among those are the 4/4 split indices.

The reason I entered this thread in the first place, is because I do not in fact subscribe to the "blind trust" theory.In the first sentence I copied from you, I know it to be true, as I learned a couple myself from reading numerous post from math experts,as I would not know how to do the math myself.I intend to make further inquiries on the 44v4 split, possibly Don S could chime in.

BoSox

I hope life is treating you well, especially health wise.Since you left Green Chip the politics page has mostly died.I post very little on that page now, as I do not want to lose friends which I previously had.

BoSox

two forum members that no longer respond to my posts simply because of having differing political philosophies. I've never made personal verbal attacks against either individual. Figure that one out.

Glad to see my removal caused the death of the politics page, it was just becoming an entirely negative experience for everybody.

I'm fine thank you and I hope you are also. I think you made a wise decision to focus on AP discussion. Though, true friends won't care about your politics-the friends I have who stayed with me through everything are to the right of Genghis Khan.

In my opinion, the correct value is +3. I have used that number for the RPC for years, and those numbers that were generated for me are as accurate as can be. Although some Hi-Lo numbers differ from RPC by one, they never deviate by 2, and so I can say with a great deal of confidence that +1 isn't right.

There are other things you can do, consulting the EORs and the e.v.s in BJA3, that can get you get close to an index just by eyeballing the values, and having done that, I'm confident that +3 is a much better number than +1.

Don