Basic Strategy ?
- Thread starter Chander
- Start date
I have been using the basic strategy engine, but I have not taken the time to compare all the differences with same rules but different # of decks. A quick look showed no difference. Also in my thought process the ratio of cards is the same no matter how many decks you start with, so I would think that the basic strategy would remain the same, unless modified by the count. And i am not far enough into my "training" to do that yet.
Is there an error in my thought process?
Is there an error in my thought process?
Chandler.
As a matter of principle you need to know perfect Basic Strategy.
Basic Strategy is the elementary foundation of all BJ play.
The differences can (at times) be significant, such as switching from an
8 deck shoe game where the dealer stands Soft 17 to a single deck game where
doubling is restricted and there is no double-after-split and the dealer hits Soft 17.
P.S. Did you ever look up "chandler" in the Oxford English Dictionary ?
As a matter of principle you need to know perfect Basic Strategy.
Basic Strategy is the elementary foundation of all BJ play.
The differences can (at times) be significant, such as switching from an
8 deck shoe game where the dealer stands Soft 17 to a single deck game where
doubling is restricted and there is no double-after-split and the dealer hits Soft 17.
P.S. Did you ever look up "chandler" in the Oxford English Dictionary ?
I can understand the differences when the rules change, like hit or stand on soft 17, I do not understand why it would change withe the number of decks, but I do not need to understand yet. I just need to memorize the correct table.
AS to the PS I have not looked up the oxford definition of chandler, but the normal definition is a candle maker. however my name is Chander no L. different origin
They need not be monetarily significant.
I care not about long-run penny differences.
The cornerstone upon which BJ study is erected is Basic Strategy.
Attempting to play BJ without complete internalization of Basic Strategy
suggests that the newbie has a less-than-serious attitude about learning BJ.
I care not about long-run penny differences.
The cornerstone upon which BJ study is erected is Basic Strategy.
Attempting to play BJ without complete internalization of Basic Strategy
suggests that the newbie has a less-than-serious attitude about learning BJ.
I don't know about you, but for myself, I don't see the need to memorize every different chart. I play in AC where its mostly 8D, occasionally 6D.
Then I travel to Vegas where I play a lot of SD and DD, as well as some 4D.
As some games are S17 and some are H17,thats ten different charts, plus some are not DAs, and others are D10-11 only.
As I'm a $5-$30 bettor, the difference between my generic chart and knowing the 15 charts I'd need is about a buffet dinner per year.
I only have so many brain cells and it's more important to me to know that Yaz won the 68 batting title with a .301 average and Ron Guidry went 25-3 with a 1.74 ERA in 1978.
Others may have different priorities.
I used to think it was vital to play the correct BS for each game, but was amazed just how little you lose by playing a less specialized one.
To me, it's just like indices. You can memorize three hundred of them, or you can memorize 13 of them and get 90% of the value. For a red chipper, the value just isn't there, imo.
I guess a lot of it depends on what you want to get out of blackjack also. For me it's not too hard to remember two charts for 4-8 Decks (H17 S17) and then two DD charts (same.) I don't play any games that don't allow DAS and the chart for DBL 10-11 should be common sense for someone that has the regular chart memorized. There's only a few differences and if I haven't played a certain game in a while a quick 5-10 min looking at the chart usually makes it all automatic again. I don't know single deck as I haven't played it, but that seems to be the one that is most different from the other charts and may take more work to memorize.
I will respond so that you can continue to bate me.
:laugh:
"The authors of KO Blackjack recommend using one generic strategy.
Are you suggesting they have aless than serious attitude about the game?"
I am suggesting that publishers, (and sometimes authors),
fully understand that you always sell "how-to" books by appealing
to the ubiquitous human tendency that makes simplicity appealing.
Nobody sells books on losing weight, getting rich, (or winning
at casino games), by making the contents complex or difficult.
:laugh:
"The authors of KO Blackjack recommend using one generic strategy.
Are you suggesting they have aless than serious attitude about the game?"
I am suggesting that publishers, (and sometimes authors),
fully understand that you always sell "how-to" books by appealing
to the ubiquitous human tendency that makes simplicity appealing.
Nobody sells books on losing weight, getting rich, (or winning
at casino games), by making the contents complex or difficult.
Last edited:
I agree with Shadroch on principle, but really, learning S17 and H17 for DD and 4-8 decks is a matter of what, 10 different plays? I primarily play 6D H17 LS and DD H17 DAS and I think the first time I ever played the DD game, I spent about 5 minutes learning the new chart. Indices are another matter, but that seems to be a moot point in this case.