English casino game - optimal strategy?

[WotaWaster]

I wonder whether anyone can tell me or recommend a site/program that can work it out. I fully understand that the optimal strategy will still be losing but want to at least minimise the edge.

The game has 6 decks using a continual shuffler so counting is not an option.
Rules are standard European blackjack as far as I am aware. Dealers do not check for blackajck first when they have an ace, etc.

The most interesting thing for me is that players are allowed to double on ANY 2 card hand. How many scores would you double against say a dealer 6?

Thanks in advance.

[cardcounter0]

This site has the answer you seek. Check out the Basic Strategy Engine link on the home page. Input the rules and create the custom chart.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bjbse.php

As far as doubling down against a dealer's 6: hard 9, 10, 11 and soft 13 thru 18 (and soft 19 if the dealer hits soft 17).

[WotaWaster]

Thanks, that's great.

[FLASH1296]

English BJ Game is a No-Hole Card Game with NO splitting of 4's or 10's and NO insurance, except (against a dealer's Ace).

It is a pretty dreadful game.

[newb99]

The restrictions on hands that can be split and doubling down have now been relaxed, and the House has the option of allowing anything to be split, doubling down on anything and allowing DAS.

Here's where you can find the latest set of rules for UK casino table games:

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...diaid=225&id=1

And yes - for a someone looking to count when playing, it is a pretty crap game.

:-)

[FLASH1296]

The lack of being able to "insure" a hand other than a Blackjack is a major fault for CARD COUNTERS.

[newb99]

I use to think that but it's not actually the case.

As dealer aces at counts of +3 or higher don't actually happen that often, there's little loss in EV. Someone ran some sims for me, and the loss in EV came out at just 0.01%.

The biggest problem with BJ in the UK are the playing conditions - when you find a beatable game, limited number of tables which are full in the evenings making the wonging in thing a great idea but unworkable in practice. It's the having to play all that takes the biggest chunk out of the +EV.

Good cards.

Newb

[FLASH1296]

Your statement is oddly incorrect.

The Higher the True Count the more you are compelled to "take insurance"
At High True Counts both Tens and Aces are abundant - using most (ace-reckoned) counts.

If you use a count that side-counts Aces, such as Hi-Opt II, Insurance
becomes even more important as the Insurance Correlation can be as high as .92

[nightspirit]

Originally Posted by FLASH1296

Your statement is oddly incorrect.

You have to blame me if the figures of Newb99 are incorrect because I ran the sim for him. The 0.01% is for a flatbetting player using Hilo with around 16 indices iirc. Maybe someone else can cross check it but I think it's correct.

For a player spreading 1 to 20 I get an EV of 0.772% and a c-SCORE of 12.43 if he can only insure the blackjack and an EV of 0.833% and a c-SCORE of 14.56 if can also insurance other hands. 2 Billion rounds were simmed.

[newb99]

On reflection I think we've been referring to two different things.

If "insurance" is assumed to include being able to insure against a dealer 10, as well as an Ace, then there will be many many more opportunities to insure a hand and turn potential losses into pushes.

The question I posed a while back was what was the loss in not being able to insure against an Ace only when not having a natural (as you could in the German casino I visited recently, but can't in the UK). Bearing in mind the number of times the dealer will pull an Ace - 5,262 times on average out of every 100,000 hands played (taken from Mr Schlesinger's tables) -and assuming that 13% of these will be at TC+3 or higher then the number of lost insurance opportunities becomes 684/100,000. Of these some would have converted losses to pushes (dealer natural), reduced wins (no natural but winning the hand) or increased the amount lost (where both the insurance bet and main bet are lost). I haven't taken the sums any further, but I suspect that the net effect of these effectively cancel each other out.

The stated loss in EV to the ENHC rules of -0.11% I think only takes into account the fact that the dealer doesn't take another card until after everyone has played their hands out. The real loss in EV when comparing the ENHC rules to US rules for counters (taking insurance at =>TC+3) will be more. One contributor reckoned that the overall house edge against UK counters was close to 1% ! ! ! ! I think it's still to be calculated.

I agree with you though - if you're used to insuring 10s and Aces and have built this into the plan to pay the mortgage through playing BJ, then visiting the UK will come as a shock.


Newb99