Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #1  
Old December 3rd, 2011, 10:32 PM
BJmath BJmath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default split index for 3,3 vs 8

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

Thanks!
  #2  
Old December 3rd, 2011, 10:47 PM
tthree tthree is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Default

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.
  #3  
Old December 3rd, 2011, 11:06 PM
BJmath BJmath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tthree View Post
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?
  #4  
Old December 3rd, 2011, 11:41 PM
Renzey Renzey is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BJmath View Post
So you mean practically just hit 3,3 vs 8 in the above game?
Split them for cover at an extra 1% loss.
  #5  
Old December 4th, 2011, 08:52 AM
AOII ASC's Avatar
AOII ASC AOII ASC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: planet earth
Posts: 6
Default

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.
  #6  
Old December 4th, 2011, 09:15 AM
tthree tthree is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Default

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.
  #7  
Old December 4th, 2011, 09:52 AM
21gunsalute 21gunsalute is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Area 51
Posts: 1,144
Default

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.
  #8  
Old December 4th, 2011, 10:30 AM
BJmath BJmath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII ASC View Post
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.
  #9  
Old December 4th, 2011, 10:50 AM
BJmath BJmath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tthree View Post
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.

Last edited by BJmath; December 4th, 2011 at 11:12 AM.
  #10  
Old December 4th, 2011, 11:19 PM
bejammin075's Avatar
bejammin075 bejammin075 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 38
Default 3,3 vs 8 has to be one of the most worthless indexes

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.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC