Tables for ENHC
- Thread starter FredericMoreau
- Start date
Is there some reason a basic strategy won't suffice? Just curious.
Anyway, I'd think you could adjust the EV's in those tables manually.
Like take 6D 9,2 vs 10. EV for doubling =0.174, Since dealer has 10 and 3 cards are out, he has a 24/309 chance of getting a BJ. And a 285/309 chance of not getting it.
So 24/309*-1 + 285/309*.174=0.083
Since the EV for hitting 9,2 vs 10 is .117, you are better off just hitting rather than doubling.
Anyway, I think that may be right but I'd feel better if somebody else said so.
Anyway, I'd think you could adjust the EV's in those tables manually.
Like take 6D 9,2 vs 10. EV for doubling =0.174, Since dealer has 10 and 3 cards are out, he has a 24/309 chance of getting a BJ. And a 285/309 chance of not getting it.
So 24/309*-1 + 285/309*.174=0.083
Since the EV for hitting 9,2 vs 10 is .117, you are better off just hitting rather than doubling.
Anyway, I think that may be right but I'd feel better if somebody else said so.
:grin: ENHC expected values
The formula Kasi provided is good for showing why it is right to hit 9-2 v 10 and not double for the ENHC rule, but the EVs will be assuming dealer has checked for BJ and doesn't have it which doesn't make sense for ENHC.
Most likely the full peek EVs you will have access to assume the condition that dealer has checked for blackjack and doesn't have it. The formulas I recommend using are (pBJ = probability of dealer blackjack):
ENHC_hit_EV = peek_hit_EV*(1-pBJ)-pBJ
ENHC_dbl_EV = peek_dbl_EV*(1-pBJ)-2*pBJ
ENHC_split_EV = peek_split_EV*(1-pBJ)-2*pBJ (This is right for SPL1)
All of my programs compute EVs starting with the assumption that player loses to dealer's blackjack, which is what actually happens. In the case of splits and doubles when the rule is full peek, I correct the EVs by giving the player a "rebate" when dealer has blackjack, so the right strategy decision is still apparent using this method and all values can be used directly in computing overall EV. You could easily get comp dependent ENHC EVs from my demo program. The double EVs will be the same as total dependent but the hit EVs could be slightly different. All you would need to do is to check the ENHC check box in the rules section along with any other rules variations offered, input player's hand, and click "Compute" to get ENHC EVs for all up cards. It is only limited to computing single deck though.
Hope this helps,
k_c
The formula Kasi provided is good for showing why it is right to hit 9-2 v 10 and not double for the ENHC rule, but the EVs will be assuming dealer has checked for BJ and doesn't have it which doesn't make sense for ENHC.
Most likely the full peek EVs you will have access to assume the condition that dealer has checked for blackjack and doesn't have it. The formulas I recommend using are (pBJ = probability of dealer blackjack):
ENHC_hit_EV = peek_hit_EV*(1-pBJ)-pBJ
ENHC_dbl_EV = peek_dbl_EV*(1-pBJ)-2*pBJ
ENHC_split_EV = peek_split_EV*(1-pBJ)-2*pBJ (This is right for SPL1)
All of my programs compute EVs starting with the assumption that player loses to dealer's blackjack, which is what actually happens. In the case of splits and doubles when the rule is full peek, I correct the EVs by giving the player a "rebate" when dealer has blackjack, so the right strategy decision is still apparent using this method and all values can be used directly in computing overall EV. You could easily get comp dependent ENHC EVs from my demo program. The double EVs will be the same as total dependent but the hit EVs could be slightly different. All you would need to do is to check the ENHC check box in the rules section along with any other rules variations offered, input player's hand, and click "Compute" to get ENHC EVs for all up cards. It is only limited to computing single deck though.
Hope this helps,
k_c
Last edited: