Question just for counters

Say you have 11 against dealers six (6 decks, Da2, H17, no surrender). According to Wong (1975) this scenario is favorable to the player by +0.673. This number is only valid on average, but if the deck is rich and or poor this number will fluctuate. My question: in this example, with a rich deck, how much more of a chance do you have (5% more, 10%?). Alternately, if the deck is poor, how much less of a chance does the player have. In essence what is the variability (fluctuation) in % in a good and a poor count situation for this example or any. Thank you very much, regards, Picasso.

You didn't mention the system so I will assume Hi-Lo. What you're looking for is the expected value at different TCs. For 6D,H17 the distribution is as follows:

 0 = 66.3%

+1 = 69.5%

+2 = 72.6%

+3 = 75.7%

+4 = 78.9%

+5 = 82.0%

Maybe you can provide the edge for some negative counts, as well.

Don

Paisanno, why you knowa usea proper basic strategy? G.

Go to progression section and do a search on my name (picasso)within the last 9 months for the answer. Regards, Picasso.

...using 30 words or less. G

6D,H17,11 vs 6

+5 = 82.0%

+4 = 78.9%

+3 = 75.7%

+2 = 72.6%

+1 = 69.5%

 0 = 66.3%

-1 = 63.2%

-2 = 60.0%

-3 = 56.8%

-4 = 53.6%

-5 = 50.3%

Index = -16.8 ==> Doubling = 10.6% and Hitting = 10.5%

From Picasso

Go to progression section and do a search on my name (picasso)within the last 9 months for the answer. Regards, Picasso.

*********************

Myself

Looks like Don Schlessinger was right all along...A progressionist out trolling for customers...If you really {wanat} want to find a Picasso on the game of blackjack, why not pick up Don Schlessinger's book called---BLACKJACK ATTACK.

[tWO] Two different people at the small Casino I just visited asked me for advice and I gave them the title of Don's book...No, I'm not a shill for Don...He deserves to be praised for his work on this subject.

And now for a question from me for Don...What is your advice about risk [management] adverse decisions now?...Your book says that you will not disparage RA [90M] but you also say that at least it won't hurt you...Could you comment on this situation a little more here please.

Sorry, my computer is malfunctioning...My delete button will not work...The words in brackets are [e] mistakes.

...and the older Ev indices need only a few slight adjustments - like 10v10 - increasing that index by a factor of 70% or so will garner more than 50% of the total available RA improvement, which in any event is only an additional .00035 gain. But, it couldn't hurt. G

I'm posting this because I think there is a big difference between a con man and a totally clueless person who thinks he is doing legitimate research. Picasso is the latter. I've read his posts on the progressions page many times. He really doesn't know any better. The con man knows very well that he is full of shit and is trying to suck in the gullible.

"And now for a question from me for Don...What is your advice about risk adverse [sic] decisions now?...Your book says that you will not disparage RA but you also say that at least it won't hurt you...Could you comment on this situation a little more here please."

I'm not sure what you'd like me to add. R-A indices add about 3% or so to your overall win rate, if you adjust your optimal bets accordingly. As I point out in BJA, because the bet changes are so slight, it's doubtful you could actually implement them in a casino. So, instead, you might bet the same amount, content that you now have less risk than you did before.

I can't add much more. Using r-a indices is better than not using them, but not by a huge amount. Nonetheless, as the joke goes, "it couldn't hurt!"

Don

Since we are allowed to double for less, can we utilize this option to be effective using RA? It makes since to me.
Or why not,, the ultimate RA indice of doubling on only a 10 or 11 against 2-8 or something of this nature?

Maybe others will find the true stats of Picasso's question useful when dealing with RA and the liking. Lets keep an open mind Don.

Mott

Risk aversion gives up some of your edge in exchange for reduced volatility. I can't see the logic in the situation he is talking about.

The optimal risk averse indeces for the cases you mention have already been worked out. To be super optimal it would depend on the size of your bet relative to your bankroll when the opportunity arose. They have been more generalized to make assumptions about the bet sizes based on optimal betting.

Doubling for less has also been worked on already. There are very, very few cases where it is advisable. Most are very weak doubles where you would only take one card anyway even if you were not doubling. A6 v 2 at a high count (above the index for standing on 12 v 2), for example.

Best inventions come from clueless research by legitimate people. I am glad to know that I am not alone thinking that I am not a con man. Regards, Picasso.

You are attempting to do something like invent a circle with 361 degrees, or a square that does not have four equal sides. It may appear more complex to you than that but it really isn't.

"The con man knows very well that he is full of shit and is trying to suck in the gullible."

Grifter, Don't know if you checked the progressions. I just did. Picasso believes that BS is tied into counting somehow and he does not count. Hit 'em hard, The Side

1) Blackjack Attack is a collection of very old articles copied on to toilet tissue and stapled together.
2) Even if the book was as valuable as everyone claims (how EXACTLY is it supposed to make me money? Or do you just get off on math geek stuff) do you think that Picasso would either understand it or be able to use it?

Time is money. It takes time to figure out the things that are made available for easy reference in this book. Same is true for Wong's Professional Blackjack. As for Griffin's Theory of Blackjack, even though I can't understand 95% of it, the 5% that I am able to understand makes it worth having as a reference. These three books should be on your shelf.

You can waste lots of time looking for something. You may not be in a position where you can run sims to find the answer to some rather simple little question.