Illustrious 18

[dpmonk2003]

Has anyone noticed that some books have different versions of the Illustrious 18. I am sure you are thinking that it is because it changes based on the amounts of decks you are playing versus. However in Kevin Blackwoods Play Black Jack like the pros he states the version posted in his book is for 6 deck shoes. (both are using high-low count as well) In Rick Blaines blackjack blueprint his version just says its for multi deck shoe games. However they have some differences in their rules on the Illustrious 18. The most confusing play deviation I found was in Blackwoods book. He says with a 13 vs a 2 with a 0 or less count you should hit. This doesn't make sense to me. If this was true then why wouldn't the basic strategy rule of 13 vs 2 to be to hit if on a brand new shoe you would make a play deviation from BS ( assuming the count didn't rise to +1) Answers appreciated.

 

[shadroch]

Are you saying you stand on 13v2?

 

[dpmonk2003]

Are you saying you stand on 13v2?

well according to BS yes you stand on 13vs2

 

[zengrifter]

Slightly different versions are the result of different methodologies used in development - most all published indices are equal in actual casino deployment... AND you need NOT learn different sets for different #decks. zg

 

[Albundy]

How are there modifications

to basic strategy on counts of zero?

For example, basic startegy says to HIT with 16 against 10,
but the illustrious 18 of Schlesinger- http://jay.purplewire.com/blackjack/ill18.html (Archive copy), says that on a count of zero, you should STAND.

Also, basic strategy says to STAND with 12 against 4, but according to illustrious 18(on link above), on a count of zero it says to HIT.

***Isn't basic strategy the best play on a count of zero???

Tyia.

 

[Sharky]

indices are read as hit < index; stand >= index

so a 13 vs 2 w/ a 0 index is, in effect, hit when RC is neg, otherwise stand.

 

[Renzey]

Isn't basic strategy the best play on a count of zero???

Notice that when you're dealt 10/6 vs. 10 off the top of the shoe, your count is less than zero -- thus you should hit.

Notice that when you're dealt 10/3 vs. 2 off the top of the shoe, your count is more than zero -- thus you should stand.

Notice when you're dealt 9/3 or 8/4 or 7/5 vs. 4 off the top of the shoe, your count is easily more than zero -- thus you should stand.

Now here come some borderline plays:
Notice that when you're dealt 10/2 vs. 4, your count is just a hair more than zero, making it a different hand than 9/3, 8/4 or 7/5 -- and it's just a trifle better to hit in S17 games, but still better to stand in H17 games. Basic strategy just remains generic here, and combines all 12's together

Notice that when you're dealt something like 7/5/4, or 8/5/3, or 9/5/2, or 4/8/4, or 4/4/4/4 all against a 10, your count is easily more than zero -- and you should stand. Yet, if you're dealt maybe A/6/8/A vs. 10, your count is less than zero and you should still hit. Basic Strategy players (and not card counters) can use the "Rule of 45" to play their 16 vs 10's more efficiently. That is, if their 16 contains a 4 or a 5 -- stand. But only against a 10. This hand, in one form or another comes up about once every 20 minutes.

 

[bigplayer]

***Isn't basic strategy the best play on a count of zero???

Tyia.

No it isn't. Basic strategy is the best play off the top of a freshly shuffled deck (or decks) after your first two cards and the dealers up card have been dealt. That is why basic strategy is different for single deck, double deck, and shoes. (In Single Deck double down on 8 vs 6 is basic strategy as an example).

 

[Albundy]

Thanks alot for the ancwers.

Would you recommend that on an 8 deck shoe, no surrender,
I should apply the indices of 16 vs 10, and 12 vs 4 even
on the slightest positive or negative count?

 

[bigplayer]

Would you recommend that on an 8 deck shoe, no surrender,
I should apply the indices of 16 vs 10, and 12 vs 4 even
on the slightest positive or negative count?

Yes, I stand on 16 vs 10 and 12 vs 4 in any positive running count. I hit at 0 or lower.