Fab 4

[Tom007]

Hey guys, I never played a surrender game, Looks like when I go to Vegas in 2 weeks I will be playing some joints offering LS. Can anyone tell me what the fab 4 plays are for HI/LO

Thanks

[nightspirit]

Surrender
14 v. 10 (+3)
15 v. 10 (0)
15 v. 9 (+2)
15 v. A (+1)

Good luck!

[Tom007]

What about 16vs9,10 or A? do you surrender it at all counts?

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Tom007

What about 16vs9,10 or A? do you surrender it at all counts?

surrender 16vs9,10 or A is basic strategy for a six deck game offering late surrender.

not sure if there is a deviation for it at some negative count. but there isn't any deviation for zero or greater counts.

edit: looked it up
for 16v 9 don't surrender if tc<0
for 88v10 surrender tc>=1
for 88vA split don't surrender
for 88v9 surrender if tc>+7
for 16v10 don't surrender if tc<=-2
for 16vA don't surrender if tc<=-1
so in these cases you'd use generic basic strategy as if surrender wasn't offered.
these are for a s17 game.

[EasyRhino]

I thought surrender 8,8 vs A was basic strategy in a H17 game. Therefore, wouldn't there be a reasonable index for it in a S17 game?

[jimbiggs]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

I thought surrender 8,8 vs A was basic strategy in a H17 game. Therefore, wouldn't there be a reasonable index for it in a S17 game?

If the game is H17. It's surrender, don't split at all counts less than 4. If the count is >4, then you would split.
If the game is S17, then you would split at all counts.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by nightspirit

Surrender
14 v. 10 (+3)
15 v. 10 (0)
15 v. 9 (+2)
15 v. A (+1)

Good luck!

I was just wondering if u got this from Schlesinger. He references Wong but in my book 15 vs A is +2 in S17 game.

Is it because Wong changed the way he calculated True Counts from one edition to the next? Like went from rounding to truncating?

There are other discrepancies too.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Kasi

I was just wondering if u got this from Schlesinger. He references Wong but in my book 15 vs A is +2 in S17 game.

Is it because Wong changed the way he calculated True Counts from one edition to the next? Like went from rounding to truncating?

There are other discrepancies too.

good catch Kasi, i see the same discrepancy when cross referancing my editions of Professional Blackjack against Blackjack Attack as well.
haven't the foggiest as to what up with that
what are some of the other discrepancies you noted?

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

good catch Kasi, i see the same discrepancy when cross referancing my editions of Professional Blackjack against Blackjack Attack as well.
haven't the foggiest as to what up with that
what are some of the other discrepancies you noted?

Off the top of my head 13 vs 2, 12 vs 6 stuff like that. I don't have Wong's earlier edition but I think almost all of his negative counts increased by 1.

I'm pretty sure it's like u calc a TC+1.6 do you round up to 2 for an index play or truncate to TC+1? In his later edition it's all truncating. So don't make a TC+2 play with a TC+1.9.

On another subject, he also eliminated his side count of Aces because of their small effect on win rate.

So, I'm thinking TC+0.51 to TC + 1.49 used to all be TC+1. But now TC+0 to TC +0.9 is all TC0.

Maybe even TC-0.9 to TC+0.9 would all be 0 since I think that's how the negative number would truncate.

So the moral is know what your TC means!

[nightspirit]

Originally Posted by Kasi

I was just wondering if u got this from Schlesinger. He references Wong but in my book 15 vs A is +2 in S17 game.

Is it because Wong changed the way he calculated True Counts from one edition to the next? Like went from rounding to truncating?

There are other discrepancies too.

Yes, they are from BJA3, p. 64. Sorry that I missed to name the source.
I don´t have Wongs books, shame on me so I can´t compare whether his TC were truncated or rounded.