Error at WizardofOdds
- Thread starter SlyPooch
- Start date
Quick disclaimer, indexes change with the number of decks you're using and the rules of the game.
Ok, with that out of the way:
The index for doubling 10 vs 10 is +4 with Hi-lo, according to most sources I'm aware of. It may be +3, but I suspect that's whether or not the indexes were truncated, or floored, or w/e. The same concept of how Wong says to double 8 vs 6 at +1 while Don says to do it at +2. It's because they generated their indexes slightly differently. I believe it's because Wong truncated them. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Ok, off to the important stuff now:
I believe your index says to double 10 vs 10 at +7 because that's the risk-averse number to do so. You see, it becomes profitable to double 10 vs 10 against a dealer 10 at a true count of +4, but it's a super volatile play, that play in particular, so some people wait until the RA index to do so in order to mitigate risk.
It's my understanding that most index plays are close to the RA number. 10 vs 10 RA index is so much higher for Hi-Lo because that play depends so heavily on the density of Aces in the deck, which Hi-Lo doesn't track.
Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong or chime in with any additional information, thanks.
EDIT: I just realized I misread your post. I answered a question you weren' even asking lol. I thought you accidentally got your hands on the RA index numbers.
Ok, with that out of the way:
The index for doubling 10 vs 10 is +4 with Hi-lo, according to most sources I'm aware of. It may be +3, but I suspect that's whether or not the indexes were truncated, or floored, or w/e. The same concept of how Wong says to double 8 vs 6 at +1 while Don says to do it at +2. It's because they generated their indexes slightly differently. I believe it's because Wong truncated them. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Ok, off to the important stuff now:
I believe your index says to double 10 vs 10 at +7 because that's the risk-averse number to do so. You see, it becomes profitable to double 10 vs 10 against a dealer 10 at a true count of +4, but it's a super volatile play, that play in particular, so some people wait until the RA index to do so in order to mitigate risk.
It's my understanding that most index plays are close to the RA number. 10 vs 10 RA index is so much higher for Hi-Lo because that play depends so heavily on the density of Aces in the deck, which Hi-Lo doesn't track.
Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong or chime in with any additional information, thanks.
EDIT: I just realized I misread your post. I answered a question you weren' even asking lol. I thought you accidentally got your hands on the RA index numbers.
When you have a max bet out and you have a two-card total of ten versus a ten up card the EV gain from doubling versus hitting at true counts of 4, 5, or even, 6 is rather small and adds a lot of extra volatility that many bankrolls do not need.
The remaining density of both the ten-value cards and aces are important for the above play and both are counted in the Hi-Low count.
The remaining density of both the ten-value cards and aces are important for the above play and both are counted in the Hi-Low count.
Last edited:
Not exactly. Chapter 13 in Blackjack Attack 3rd Edition pg371, and 372 better explains this decision to either double or hit the hand based on "Certainty Equivalent, Expected Value and adjusting for risk by the percentage of the bet expressed as a fraction of the Kelly- equivalent (optimal) bankroll."
Last edited:
I do and table 10.1 does have a handful of numbers off by 1 from the Wong chart (which I think you previously dismissed as rounding or whatnot); However my original question of 10 vs. 10 it too says +4 for the 6 deck so I am wondering why WizardofOdds says to double or do you defer to the "Certainty Equivalent, Expected Value" alluded to by BoSox?
Same reply as above, by others. The correct Hi-Lo index for doubling 10 vs. 10 is actually an "in-between" 3.5. It makes very little difference if you double at +3 or +4. Don't lose sleep over it. See here: https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm
Much more important is the fact that this is a very risky double at the precise strike point, and so the risk-averse index is much higher, at +7, and is the most important of all such indices. You will do better in the long run to be conservative about making this double.
Don
Much more important is the fact that this is a very risky double at the precise strike point, and so the risk-averse index is much higher, at +7, and is the most important of all such indices. You will do better in the long run to be conservative about making this double.
Don
You do realize that +7 hardly ever occurs? Also, I thought the whole point of of indices (at least simple ones like the illustrious 18) was to show what will make the most money in the long run regardless of variance/risk (or by "long run" do you mean simply mean going broke less often but making less money)? If I am wrong about this than can you point me to the page number for the 'risk averse' illustrious 18...also, the link you provided does not have the hit soft 17 rule as an option (even though it may make know difference in this case)
Understand i am NOT looking for some sort of in depth analysis of backjack or to promote some book or software or find out how smart anybody is or read 100 pages on something i will never use.,,,again, in 10 vs 10 will i make more money in the long run doubling at +4 or +7..????..i do not care about variance or risk aversion or certainty equivalent, etc.
The above quote is rather confusing regarding everything you wrote, including this last sentence again:
"If I am wrong about this than can you point me to the page number for the 'risk averse' illustrious 18...also, the link you provided does not have the hit soft 17 rule as an option (even though it may make know difference in this case)"
The I 18 on page 213 of Don's book is not risk-averse indices they are strike points for making deviations on the most important indices needed today. At the bottom of the page is this stated reference from Don:
" Where two indices are shown, the second is for h17."
Again when you say "the link does not have the h17 rule option (even though it may make know difference in this case)" the discussion was about a player deciding whether to double or hit a two-card total of 10 versus a ten upcard. The house rule to hit or stand on 17 is not relevant in the example and frankly, you should know this.
"If I am wrong about this than can you point me to the page number for the 'risk averse' illustrious 18...also, the link you provided does not have the hit soft 17 rule as an option (even though it may make know difference in this case)"
The I 18 on page 213 of Don's book is not risk-averse indices they are strike points for making deviations on the most important indices needed today. At the bottom of the page is this stated reference from Don:
" Where two indices are shown, the second is for h17."
Again when you say "the link does not have the h17 rule option (even though it may make know difference in this case)" the discussion was about a player deciding whether to double or hit a two-card total of 10 versus a ten upcard. The house rule to hit or stand on 17 is not relevant in the example and frankly, you should know this.
Last edited:
