Wong's tables: Does dealer check down-card when Ace is showing

I'm wondering if the tables in Wong's books are based on the dealer checking the down-card for a 10 when an Ace shows. (Is this universal at all casinos?).

I'm asking this because it seems like the recommendations for Surrender and conservative play are rather "drastic" for when an Ace is showing.
It seems that if we know the dealer does NOT have a 10 (when an Ace shows), then a dealer's Ace should not be as "awful" as the tables make it seem.

So, are the tables based on the dealer checking, or not checking, the down card when an Ace shows, before players take cards.

Thank you

The EV for the hands are the same either way if the dealer only takes original bets in the event a blackjack is found. You need to trust the math behind the decisions and not whether you think a play "seems drastic".

The dealer having an Ace is pretty awful for the player even if the dealer doesn't have a blackjack. They are starting with a 1 or 11 which means the dealer almost always makes a pat hand of some sort.

The only times you have the advantage when dealer is showing an ace are when you are dealt 10, 11, 19, 20, or 21. If you have 16, the dealer advantage is more than 51%, which is why you surrender if you can and lose only 50%.

You check out the numbers at http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/ev/6ds17.htm

I'm asking if the tables are based on the dealer revealing or NOT revealing that the down card is a 10 before the player makes decisions. Surely, this would affect the mathematical calculations of the tables. Example: If we know the dealer doesn't have a blackjack, then the table should be more "lenient" because it is less likely we will loose.

So, again, my original question is: are the tables in Wong's books based on the player knowing that the dealer does not have a blackjack?

I'm asking if the tables are based on the dealer revealing or NOT revealing that the down card is a 10 before the player makes decisions. Surely, this would affect the mathematical calculations of the tables. Example: If we know the dealer doesn't have a blackjack, then the table should be more "lenient" because it is less likely we will loose.

The answer, as bigplayer said, it doesn't matter whether or not dealer checks for a blackjack. If he does have a blackjack, you will still lose whether you bust or not, so why would you play any differently?

Example: Dealer has Ace, you have 10, 4. If dealer checks for the 10 and shows a blackjack you lose. If dealer doesn't check and you hit a 7 for 21, you will still lose when dealer shows the 10.

Two exceptions: 1) If you can early surrender, you would be doing that more often. 2) If you lose both bets on a double or split, you would be doing that less ofter.

That's the usual formula to indicate that the dealer has already checked for Blackjack.I don't know exactly which tables you have in mind but if you mean the EV-tables, it certainly makes a difference.
Note that an Ace has a Bustrate of 11%, but this rises to 17% once the dealer has checked for Blackjack.(See explanations on page 301)

Francis Salmon

Jim,

For example, in the Appendices of Professional Blackjack Wong lists two sets of Surrender Indexes: Early Surrender numbers are for use if you get to surrender BEFORE the dealer checks for BJ; Late Surrender numbers are for use if you only get to surrender AFTER the dealer checks for BJ. If you look there, you'll see that the ES indexes are lower than the LS indexes.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Francis and Dog Hand.....you gave me the answer I was looking for. I see that there are two tables with different values, one for Early Surrender and one for Late Surrender. (The latter is the one I need to follow). Thank you!

Most of the tables are made for dealer checking for BJ, but Chapter 7 takes into account if dealer doesn't check for BJ.