SP21 Count Conversions
- Thread starter daddybo
- Start date
A Level Two Count makes very little, if any, sense for Spanish 21 ...
... because there is significantly "flattened" effects of removal for the low cards.
All Level Two Counts use TWO tags for the low cards.
Ergo, that makes little sense with Spanish 21.
In regular BJ the 5's and 4's are the most important "low" cards to track.
The 6's and 3's are moderately important and are of almost equal value.
The 2's and 7's are weak and some systems ignore them
This is not true in Spanish 21.
Here is an oddity to help demonstrate that Spanish 21 is an equine if a variant hue - "A horse of a different color" L.O.L.
NOTE:
In BJ, Eights (8's) are such weak "high" cards they are almost always ignored;
but in Spanish 21 the Eights (8's) are on a par with the Nine (9); while the Seven (7) goes from
being a very weak "low" card to a worthless neutral card, not unlike the eight (8) is in ordinary BJ.
... because there is significantly "flattened" effects of removal for the low cards.
All Level Two Counts use TWO tags for the low cards.
Ergo, that makes little sense with Spanish 21.
In regular BJ the 5's and 4's are the most important "low" cards to track.
The 6's and 3's are moderately important and are of almost equal value.
The 2's and 7's are weak and some systems ignore them
This is not true in Spanish 21.
Here is an oddity to help demonstrate that Spanish 21 is an equine if a variant hue - "A horse of a different color" L.O.L.
NOTE:
In BJ, Eights (8's) are such weak "high" cards they are almost always ignored;
but in Spanish 21 the Eights (8's) are on a par with the Nine (9); while the Seven (7) goes from
being a very weak "low" card to a worthless neutral card, not unlike the eight (8) is in ordinary BJ.
yes, I understand these. (I have Walkers book) Honestly it's harder for me to use Hilo than a level 2 count. I was thinking along the lines of a count with tags that are the same but of course use different indices for BJ and SP21.. It's hard for me to swap between level 1 and 2 counts. It's kind of a half formed thought right now... let me do some math and some thinking. 
For interested parties following this thread who have not read Katrina's book on Spanish 21, here are the Effects of Removal and a quirky few factoids.
Switching to Spanish 21 means forgetting some of what you hold dear about BJ.
The complete Basic Strategy is rather complex.
In fact a single hand can have 2 or more indexes, depending mostly on how many cards there are.
The most complex is handling 17 vs. a dealer's Ace.
If your 17 is composed of 2 cards you'll surrender (down until a modest negative count).
If it is a 3 card 17 you will HIT (unless the count is modestly high).
If you have a 17 as a result of doubled hand you will "rescue" it.
That is synonymous with surrendering the hand (up until +2 that is).
Most of your regular more commonplace decisions are dependent upon how many cards you hold.
If you have a 14 vs. a dealer 6 Basic Strategy dictates standing, that is unless you have 4 or more cards, then you HIT.
If you have an 11 and the dealer shows an Ace. You double, that is unless you have 3 cards, then you HIT.
To make matters even more complex, your ordinary Indices for violating Basic Strategy need an additional adjustment whenever a multicard exception like these are involved.
Whew !
Oddly, the dealer's bust % in this game slightly increases with the count when displaying a high card.
NOW, what do YOU imagine the hand with the worst equity is in this game ?
If you say 16 vs. 10 that holds for BJ but not in this game.
It is 17 vs. Ace ! I kid you not.
Returning to the subject of my earier post and Level Two Counts,
here are the effects of removal for BJ and Span 21:
#_BJ_Sp21
2 +.42 +.29
3 +.51 +.40
4 +.69 +.56
5 +.84 +.65
6 +.49 +.40
7 +.24 +.04
8 -.04 -.21
9 -.25 -.17
X -.60 -.44
A -.52 -.73
I can see (accurate-looking) Level Three tags to apply, but I cannot accept
that playing with a level three count would be worth the effort.
Switching to Spanish 21 means forgetting some of what you hold dear about BJ.
The complete Basic Strategy is rather complex.
In fact a single hand can have 2 or more indexes, depending mostly on how many cards there are.
The most complex is handling 17 vs. a dealer's Ace.
If your 17 is composed of 2 cards you'll surrender (down until a modest negative count).
If it is a 3 card 17 you will HIT (unless the count is modestly high).
If you have a 17 as a result of doubled hand you will "rescue" it.
That is synonymous with surrendering the hand (up until +2 that is).
Most of your regular more commonplace decisions are dependent upon how many cards you hold.
If you have a 14 vs. a dealer 6 Basic Strategy dictates standing, that is unless you have 4 or more cards, then you HIT.
If you have an 11 and the dealer shows an Ace. You double, that is unless you have 3 cards, then you HIT.
To make matters even more complex, your ordinary Indices for violating Basic Strategy need an additional adjustment whenever a multicard exception like these are involved.
Whew !
Oddly, the dealer's bust % in this game slightly increases with the count when displaying a high card.
NOW, what do YOU imagine the hand with the worst equity is in this game ?
If you say 16 vs. 10 that holds for BJ but not in this game.
It is 17 vs. Ace ! I kid you not.
Returning to the subject of my earier post and Level Two Counts,
here are the effects of removal for BJ and Span 21:
#_BJ_Sp21
2 +.42 +.29
3 +.51 +.40
4 +.69 +.56
5 +.84 +.65
6 +.49 +.40
7 +.24 +.04
8 -.04 -.21
9 -.25 -.17
X -.60 -.44
A -.52 -.73
I can see (accurate-looking) Level Three tags to apply, but I cannot accept
that playing with a level three count would be worth the effort.
I feel that we ought to have a Spanish 21 forum;
as Span21 is my primary source of income now,
and I like talking about it. It is not entirely self-serving,
It appears that sufficient interest does not (yet) exist;
but it will be Ken's decision, not ours. He is our benefactor.
He is the Alpha Cat in this neck of the woods.
Gratitude in extremis -- well-earned by our beloved Instant_Primate.
I merely lifted the figures that I posted from Katarina Walker's text.
As nearly all Spanish21 games [except for New Jersey and Connecticut]
deal H17 exclusively, the text has few tables/charts re: the S17 game.
Pulleeze help me out here.
I do not comprehend the figures that you posted.
Thanx,
Flash
I merely lifted the figures that I posted from Katarina Walker's text.
As nearly all Spanish21 games [except for New Jersey and Connecticut]
deal H17 exclusively, the text has few tables/charts re: the S17 game.
*************************************************
A.M.,Pulleeze help me out here.
I do not comprehend the figures that you posted.
Thanx,
Flash
I am completely unused to the E.O.R. expressed in this fashion for a shoe of 8 Spanish Decks.
Can I simply multiply each times 8 for a "per deck" EoR?
That looks wrong.
Can I just recompute the figures by multiplying each by 388 ? and then dividing the sum by 388 in order to weigh the EoR correctly ?
That looks wrong.
Help !
Could you please be kind enough to replace the posted figures with the EoR expressed
as it has most often been done in the past by K. Walker, P. Griffin, A. Snyder, etc. etc. ?
Can I simply multiply each times 8 for a "per deck" EoR?
That looks wrong.
Can I just recompute the figures by multiplying each by 388 ? and then dividing the sum by 388 in order to weigh the EoR correctly ?
That looks wrong.
Help !
Could you please be kind enough to replace the posted figures with the EoR expressed
as it has most often been done in the past by K. Walker, P. Griffin, A. Snyder, etc. etc. ?
Feedback sought
I certainly lack the mathematical strengths to do more than ponder new game scenarios.
I think of this as "Super Spanish 21"
Spanish 21 with Re-Double rule in effect; Blackjacks pay Even Money,
S17, 6 deck, [deal 5] bet one spot only with 20-1 table Min/Max bets permitted.
Five seats per table. Early Surrender. Surrender ANY time.
Double ANY time. Unlimited pair splits.
Another game idea that I have dubbed "Spanish Switch 21"
A combination of BJ Switch and Spanish 21 with reduced or eliminated BJ premiums.
I certainly lack the mathematical strengths to do more than ponder new game scenarios.
I think of this as "Super Spanish 21"
Spanish 21 with Re-Double rule in effect; Blackjacks pay Even Money,
S17, 6 deck, [deal 5] bet one spot only with 20-1 table Min/Max bets permitted.
Five seats per table. Early Surrender. Surrender ANY time.
Double ANY time. Unlimited pair splits.
Another game idea that I have dubbed "Spanish Switch 21"
A combination of BJ Switch and Spanish 21 with reduced or eliminated BJ premiums.
EoR for Span 21 S17 / Span 21 H17 / BJ
BJ_H17_S'21H17_S'21S17
--------------------
2 +.42 +.29 +.40
3 +.51 +.40 +.56
4 +.69 +.56 +.80
5 +.84 +.65 +.96
6 +.49 +.40 +.56
7 +.24 +.04 +.08
8 -.04 -.21 -.24
9 -.25 -.17 -.16
X -.60 -.44 -.48
A -.52 -.73 -1.28
The Sum of these 3 columns ought to sum to Zero I believe, with allowances for rounding errors.
That is not the case here. Where am I going wrong ? Anywhere ?
Blackjack H17: Summed values are missing just .02 of e.v.
Spanish 21 S17: Is missing .24 of e.v. acceptable ?
Spanish 21 H17: Is missing .31 of e.v. acceptable ?
This is the best that I can manage with the formatting.
Am I posting these numbers with egregious errors ?
BJ_H17_S'21H17_S'21S17
--------------------
2 +.42 +.29 +.40
3 +.51 +.40 +.56
4 +.69 +.56 +.80
5 +.84 +.65 +.96
6 +.49 +.40 +.56
7 +.24 +.04 +.08
8 -.04 -.21 -.24
9 -.25 -.17 -.16
X -.60 -.44 -.48
A -.52 -.73 -1.28
The Sum of these 3 columns ought to sum to Zero I believe, with allowances for rounding errors.
That is not the case here. Where am I going wrong ? Anywhere ?
Blackjack H17: Summed values are missing just .02 of e.v.
Spanish 21 S17: Is missing .24 of e.v. acceptable ?
Spanish 21 H17: Is missing .31 of e.v. acceptable ?
This is the best that I can manage with the formatting.
Am I posting these numbers with egregious errors ?
Hi FLASH
I'm glad you are taking an interest in SP21, not that that matters, but it is a fun game. To me anyway lol.
My GUESS is that AM's EOR's are expressed for 8 decks with the effect of just 1 xcard being removed.
So, I'd GUESS, yes, multiply by 8 to get the EOR of removal per deck.
Just as, I'd GUESS, Walker's EOR's are expressed per single-deck. So, her BJ EOR's are for an H17, DAS, DOA, SPA1, SPL3, LS game and her SP21 eor's, like you said, are for a "standard H17" game. Actually they are not even her eor's for the SP21 game and she admits she did not calc them herself.
So, if so, and you play a "standard H17" SP21 game, just divide the eor's by the number of decks for the eor of just one x-card.
I suppose it could have bearing on whether one uses TC's or RC's.
Getting back to your original question of level 2 or 3 counts, I think one can assign whatever tag values one wishes to any card one wants and determine the betting or playing efficiency of that "system" based on the eor's of that game.
Every set of rules would give rise to different eor's. I'd, once again, guess lol.
I think I have seen somewhere eor's for both betting efficiency and playing effiency.
I'm not even exactly sure of the different assumptions behind either but I don't think they are the same lol.
And, yes, the eor's should sum to 0 I'd guess. Keep in mind they are all %'s and john doe's .09 difference really means 0.0009 which is pretty close to 0.
Also, as he said, make sure you account for the X card (any 10 value) for either BJ or SP21 for each 10,J,Q,K.
Can I come to your house and play one of your Super SP21 games?
Just kidding :grin: :grin:
I'm glad you are taking an interest in SP21, not that that matters, but it is a fun game. To me anyway lol.
My GUESS is that AM's EOR's are expressed for 8 decks with the effect of just 1 xcard being removed.
So, I'd GUESS, yes, multiply by 8 to get the EOR of removal per deck.
Just as, I'd GUESS, Walker's EOR's are expressed per single-deck. So, her BJ EOR's are for an H17, DAS, DOA, SPA1, SPL3, LS game and her SP21 eor's, like you said, are for a "standard H17" game. Actually they are not even her eor's for the SP21 game and she admits she did not calc them herself.
So, if so, and you play a "standard H17" SP21 game, just divide the eor's by the number of decks for the eor of just one x-card.
I suppose it could have bearing on whether one uses TC's or RC's.
Getting back to your original question of level 2 or 3 counts, I think one can assign whatever tag values one wishes to any card one wants and determine the betting or playing efficiency of that "system" based on the eor's of that game.
Every set of rules would give rise to different eor's. I'd, once again, guess lol.
I think I have seen somewhere eor's for both betting efficiency and playing effiency.
I'm not even exactly sure of the different assumptions behind either but I don't think they are the same lol.
And, yes, the eor's should sum to 0 I'd guess. Keep in mind they are all %'s and john doe's .09 difference really means 0.0009 which is pretty close to 0.
Also, as he said, make sure you account for the X card (any 10 value) for either BJ or SP21 for each 10,J,Q,K.
Can I come to your house and play one of your Super SP21 games?
Just kidding :grin: :grin: