What TC results in most % of dealer busts? (nt)

I have always thought the dealer breaks most often with the deck at about -1 TC.

my gut feeling was between -1 and 0. With + counts, he's less likely to get stiffs to start with, and with big - counts, he's less likely to break the stiffs if he gets one...

But it is just a gut feeling...

I don't have the book handy, but didn't he say that the optimal density of tens is somewhere around 41%? I guess that's not exactly what you're asking, but maybe it's a start.

Even the Wizard only has the probabilities for OTT:

http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/bjapx2b.html

You may have stumped everybody!

-Sonny-

The EVs for each count under each system have been calculated long ago, and the occurance of dealer breaks are included in those numbers.

Thus reduces the isolated, count-by-count percentages of dealer breaks to useless trivia.

The deck is composed of all eights. BTW, I agree with OldCoot's answer.

Dr 21

> my gut feeling was between -1 and 0.

Nice job!

It was a simple thought, and often enough they are wrong. :)

but at - counts, breaking is less likely, at + counts, getting stiff hands is less likely so breaking is less likely. Didn't leave much room for a guess. :)

If I really cared, I'd modify my sim software program to compute this, and I might one day when I have nothing better to do. Right now the air in my tires needs changing. :)

I'm saying nice job on a nice guess. It appears Dog Hand and Dr 21 would vouch for your answer.

From days gone by you might have assumed some sarcasm in my initial post, but not this time .. nice job!

was a tangent on flooring vs truncating. :)

If you truncate the TC I'd guess -0- is the correct answer, period, since that makes TC=0 twice as wide as any other count.

If you floor, I'd take my "between -1 and 0" to be pretty close.

But as I said, these were "gut feelings". And more often than not, as BS has shown, "gut" != "right" (!= is computer-speak for not equal of course).

I did so well on Eliot's 30 card question, I had thought I had busted this one badly also. :)