split index for 3,3 vs 8

[BJmath]

What is the index for splitting 3,3 vs 8 using hi-lo in DD, H17, DA2, DAS game?

Thanks!

[tthree]

I don't think there is a PRACTICAL index for splitting 33 v 8. If you were side counting 7 and 8 you would need to generate an index to use along with your RC adjustment for the side counts and this play. Without the side counts there is no practical index.

[BJmath]

Originally Posted by tthree

I don't think there is a PRACTICAL index for splitting 33 v 8. If you were side counting 7 and 8 you would need to generate an index to use along with your RC adjustment for the side counts and this play. Without the side counts there is no practical index.

So you mean practically just hit 3,3 vs 8 in the above game?

[Renzey]

Originally Posted by BJmath

So you mean practically just hit 3,3 vs 8 in the above game?

Split them for cover at an extra 1% loss.

[AOII ASC]

According to Professional Blackjack 1974 edition. Table A1 -- High-Low, One-Deck, Dealer Hits Soft 17, for Player's hand of 3-3 vs. Dealer 8, split if double down allowed shows an index of 0. Table A2 -- Four-Deck, split 3-3 vs. 8 DAS at a TC of 4.

[tthree]

I would listen to these guys. I don't use HILO (HIOPT II) and play mostly shoe S17 games. I will say if the reference is right (I am not doubting it) I am surprised by it. That hand relies so much on neutral cards I can't imagine those are risk averse indices. The EOR table has 6, 7 and 8 as the only cards valuable in surplus. 2, 3 and 4 are pretty valuable in deficit as the 6 in surplus but not near as important as the 7 and 8 are in surplus. A pretty weak correlation to most counts without the side counts.

[21gunsalute]

I don't have an index specifcally for DD, but the index I have for shoe games is to split 3/3 v 8 @ TC of 5. The index for splitting 2/2 v 8 is also 5. These are 2 indices I never use and I really can't understand the logic behind them. It seems to me like these splits would work better at lower TCs. At TC5 you're probably at or close to your max bet so why would you want to split and double the money you have on the table (or more if resplits occur) to make what would very likely be 2 poor hands that you may bust out? And even if you don't bust out the dealer is very likely to make a hand with an 8 showing. The only times I make these splits are in negative counts with minimum bets out to eat cards.

[BJmath]

Originally Posted by AOII ASC

According to Professional Blackjack 1974 edition. Table A1 -- High-Low, One-Deck, Dealer Hits Soft 17, for Player's hand of 3-3 vs. Dealer 8, split if double down allowed shows an index of 0. Table A2 -- Four-Deck, split 3-3 vs. 8 DAS at a TC of 4.

Thank you. This is useful information, which seems to suggest it is unclear when to split 3,3 vs 8 (or at least hit may not always be the appropriate play). On the othre hand, I think tthree's reply was very insightful. Whether DAS makes a difference should depend on the remaining #'s (or proportions) of 7 and 8.

[BJmath]

Originally Posted by tthree

I would listen to these guys. I don't use HILO (HIOPT II) and play mostly shoe S17 games. I will say if the reference is right (I am not doubting it) I am surprised by it. That hand relies so much on neutral cards I can't imagine those are risk averse indices. The EOR table has 6, 7 and 8 as the only cards valuable in surplus. 2, 3 and 4 are pretty valuable in deficit as the 6 in surplus but not near as important as the 7 and 8 are in surplus. A pretty weak correlation to most counts without the side counts.

One reason why I had this question was that when I simulated this index using CVData and a toy high-level counting system, I got conflict results. When I used the original counting system, I got an index to split when TC > -4.1 (this number has been converted so that you could somehow think of it as the index for a hi-lo system). In a different simulation run where I divided each tag value by 2 and used the "half point support" option (so that supposedly the resulting indices should be consistent, i.e., also approximately half of the indices generated from the 1st set). This turned out to be indeed the case for essentially all indices except for this one: 3,3 vs 8. The second simulation run suggested to split 3,3 vs 8 when TC > -1.8 (also converted and comparable, with the half tag values already taken into account; otherwise the index was -0.9). Both simulation runs were based on the beat-to-death method, i.e., with a HUGE number of simulations. I think these inconsistent results basically agreed with what tthree suggested, i.e., the counting of the non-neutral cards has little correlation with a correct play for this (essentially only relevant cards would be 7 and 8).

My above indices also disagreed with the basic strategy for 2D from Wizard of Odds: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/strategy/2deck.html. That is, my indices suggest to split as a basic stragegy (when TC = 0). But I noticed that all others' indicess mentioned above (i.e., split when TC > some positive number, despite for different # of decks) were essentially consistent with the basic strategy.

Maybe without side counting 7 or 8, one (reference) play would be using the H17 or S17 index and ignoring DAS here (especially for hi-lo system which treats both 7 and 8 as neutral). For certain counting system assigning a positive tag value to 7, there then is a very remote correlation of the TC with the splitting decision.

[bejammin075]

I recently did my own cvdata index sims with Zen, and spent a lot of time looking at the output files. 3,3 (and 2,2) vs 8 were the most worthless of the whole bunch. Prior to that I had been including thoose indexes in my practice, but dropped them after seeing the sim results. I think the best option is to just hit. There was NO correlation up & down the whole TC range. 7,7 vs 8 was better, so I kept that (split at TC 7, DAS, no index for nDAS, for Zen). I suspect that indexes like 3,3 vs 8 are just archaic things that still persist for some reason.