A7 vs. 2
- Thread starter doctorbean
- Start date
Double
Perhaps not for the risk adverse amongst us, but according Mr Wong, in both hi-lo and halves, you double A,7 vs 2 on any count above 0. Only exception is single deck where the dealer stays on soft 17 (rare game) and the number there is double above +1
Remember the dealer will make many hands showing a 2 but a 2 is not a dealer ace it is only a dealer duece.
ihate17
Perhaps not for the risk adverse amongst us, but according Mr Wong, in both hi-lo and halves, you double A,7 vs 2 on any count above 0. Only exception is single deck where the dealer stays on soft 17 (rare game) and the number there is double above +1
Remember the dealer will make many hands showing a 2 but a 2 is not a dealer ace it is only a dealer duece.
ihate17
Last edited:
A7vs2 and 16vs10 are to me confusing how they are written up in Wong's Professional Blackjack. especially the A7vs2 i guess.
but i think most any basic strategy chart you run up against is gonna say
A7vs2 stand
and
16vs10 stand.....
and i guess initially one thinks of basic strategy as being the generic strategy play one does with no knowledge of the count sort of thing, for some reason i associate that with the philosophy that the count tends to hang around tc=0 sort of idea (especially since a fresh shuffle always represents tc=0).
so then Wong's charts have you deviating from BS for A17vs2 & 16vs10 when tc>=0 (if i'm reading them correct) where A17vs2 you double and 16vs10 you stand.
it makes it seem as if A7vs2 is such a close call but then it's not even in the I18, maybe risk averse stuff like ihate17 is saying?
then even seemingly more convoluted for A7vs2 if you can't double stand with no deviation number...
confusing to me.
probably something i'm missing, maybe learn something new again here:whip:
but i think most any basic strategy chart you run up against is gonna say
A7vs2 stand
and
16vs10 stand.....
and i guess initially one thinks of basic strategy as being the generic strategy play one does with no knowledge of the count sort of thing, for some reason i associate that with the philosophy that the count tends to hang around tc=0 sort of idea (especially since a fresh shuffle always represents tc=0).
so then Wong's charts have you deviating from BS for A17vs2 & 16vs10 when tc>=0 (if i'm reading them correct) where A17vs2 you double and 16vs10 you stand.
it makes it seem as if A7vs2 is such a close call but then it's not even in the I18, maybe risk averse stuff like ihate17 is saying?
then even seemingly more convoluted for A7vs2 if you can't double stand with no deviation number...
confusing to me.
probably something i'm missing, maybe learn something new again here
:whip:[QUOTE=sagefr0g;it makes it seem as if A7vs2 is such a close call but then it's not even in the I18, maybe risk averse stuff like ihate17 is saying?
then even seemingly more convoluted for A7vs2 if you can't double stand with no deviation number...
confusing to me.
probably something i'm missing, maybe learn something new again here :
As a haphazard guess on why A7 vs 2 is not in the I18: The gain made by doubling is not significant over standing?
As far as your confusion over there being no deviation number for hitting A,7 vs 2, either I am not reading your post correctly or you are missing something.
For there to be an indice number, there needs to be a count where hitting soft 18 vs 2 would have a higher win rate percentage than standing on it.
Since Wong only published numbers for TC's of +20 to -20, my guess is if there is such a number it goes beyond these borders.
So if you are playing a game where you can not double A,7 or you have a 3 or more card soft 18, just stay.
ihate17
then even seemingly more convoluted for A7vs2 if you can't double stand with no deviation number...
confusing to me.
probably something i'm missing, maybe learn something new again here :
As a haphazard guess on why A7 vs 2 is not in the I18: The gain made by doubling is not significant over standing?
As far as your confusion over there being no deviation number for hitting A,7 vs 2, either I am not reading your post correctly or you are missing something.
For there to be an indice number, there needs to be a count where hitting soft 18 vs 2 would have a higher win rate percentage than standing on it.
Since Wong only published numbers for TC's of +20 to -20, my guess is if there is such a number it goes beyond these borders.
So if you are playing a game where you can not double A,7 or you have a 3 or more card soft 18, just stay.
ihate17