What are the main variations for Single deck games when the count is high? I am familiar with 6-8 deck variations, but I understand that there is money to be made by different variations in the single deck games.
BL
Most multiple deck games, 4 decks or higher, are S17.
The 5 most important variations between H17 and S17 are
15 v A
16 v A
11 v A
When to hit or stand on soft 18 v A
9,9 v A
I'm not an expert at SD and I hate to contradict bigplayer but when I looked at the tables in Wong's PBJ I discovered some amazing differences.
Anonimuss has already pointed out the variations for H17 but I think that SD is also mainly NDAS, so the splitting numbers are totally different. But even with DAS there are some amazing differences between multi deck and SD:While 6/6 v 7 is never split in MD, it's almost always split at SD (reverse index at +11),also 7/7 v 8 which is never split in MD is usually split in SD (index -1),even more astonishing splitting 3/3 v 8 is BS for SD (index 0)but 2/2 v 8 requires a TC of +11!
Also the hard standing numbers can differ considerably:+10 for 16 v 8 instead of +7 for MD.If you play SD regularly it appears worthwhile to memorize the composition dependent indices.For instance:O for 9/7 v10 but +4 for 10v6!There are many more differences,I just mentioned the most striking ones. Have pleasure with learning!
Francis Salmon
Obviously you should learn the variations between s17 and h17 and between DAS and no DAS...aside from that, IMHO, you're wasting a lot of effort on things that simply will not affect your win rate enough to make a any difference.
I don't know by how much the use of correct indices will increase the win rate.I just answered Backliner's question and it's his decision whether he wants to put in the effort.
My opinion is that it's quite important to know that 10/6 v10 should be hit til +4 as this situation arises very frequently.Learning indexes is an effort that takes place way before the actual playing session so it doesn't affect your error rate as would be the case with a multilevel count or a sidecount.During play,you just recall the numbers from memory.In SD ,indexes are more important than in shoe games,so why not use the correct ones?
Francis Salmon
Thanks for the insight.
A couple of days ago my I had the 3,3 opportunity come up 3 times in 5 shuffles. The first time I drew to 21 and bust. The second time drew to 20 and 17 the dealer pulled a 21. The last time i drew hard hands and the dealer bust. So the wins and losses were even. The difference was the amount on the table at the time. The original bet before the deal made all the diffrence. I ended up 10 units on the three plays.
Thanks for the input.
I tend to agree that most of the obscure plays have little effect. Yet, I want to know the mathmaticcally right play as Francis points out, but my stupidity costs me more money than anything else.
Isn't the index 0 for 16v10, what am I missing? The off the top difference is so marginal, that I cannot imagine a context where we would have to wait til +4 to stand, I think I'd prefer to wait til -4 to hit ( :) )... but that's just me. Could it be a mistake in the book, if not, what is the rational for this?
Thanks
TAO
I must admit I was also surprised when I saw this number but when you give it some thought, it appears quite plausible.
When you open Griffins TOB on page 27 you'll see that in the situation 16v10 the EORs for 6 and 10 add up to 2.9% compared to -0.1% for 9 and 7.
This proves the importance of composition dependant indices in SD.
Francis Salmon
You are playing SD, using hi-lo and a composition dependant strategie as well as normal indice, but those are modified by composition dependant factors. So say on the first round you get T6vT, and you hit of course, the on the next round, TC=2, you are dealt 97vT, and you (hit?)because the count is not +4? Does this strategie come into play anytime in the deck that you see a T6vT, and for the remainder of the deck, or is it only for the first couple of rounds? or only the current round?
Sorry for the confusion
Thanks
TAO
Let me first say that I have never played single deck in my life and I'm merely interpreting Wong's strategy recommandations,hopefully correctly:
I think the numbers are restricted not only to the current round but even to the hand you're confronted with.So if in the first round you get 9/7 ,your neighbor has 10/6 and a third player has got 3/2 bringing the count with the dealer ten to +1 ,you would stand in spite of your neighbo's hand. However according to the same principle,your neighbor would have to hit.
This restriction makes sense because it's normal to see one 6 within 13 cards,so you shouldn't extend it's impact to several hands or rounds.
Francis Salmon
