beyond the illustrious 18

Split 4s

I checked my UAPC indices and they have me never splitting 4s. I looked at a little of Wongs Pro BJ and he has you splitting 4s at tc 6 and tc4 if I am correct.

I can easily bend these two index plays, I actually think I have been for a while anyway (DAS game).

Uston was wrong?
 
Dopple said:
I checked my UAPC indices and they have me never splitting 4s. I looked at a little of Wongs Pro BJ and he has you splitting 4s at tc 6 and tc4 if I am correct.

I can easily bend these two index plays, I actually think I have been for a while anyway (DAS game).

Uston was wrong?
Click to expand...

Never splitting 4's?? :confused: I think you are looking at something wrong. Splitting 4's vs 5 or 6 is basic strategy for most games isn't it? Definately for DAS games.
 
Yeah I am sure you are right but if anyone does check out the UAPC index cards for 4 split they will see it is not recommended across the board. I checked on CVBJ too. While I respect the mans work I may have unearthed a minor flaw.
 
kewljason said:
Never splitting 4's?? :confused: I think you are looking at something wrong. Splitting 4's vs 5 or 6 is basic strategy for most games isn't it? Definately for DAS games.
Click to expand...

Yes for DAS games, and it's a play that doesn't get done in negative counts.

My favorite negative indices are DD 9 vs. 3 and 10 vs. 9. In SD games you end up using a whole mess of indices.
 
Wise Won

sagefr0g said:
the way i'm reading Wong's tables, (and they are difficult for me to read and understand), but it looks to me as if the ** next to a pair of fours is interpreted to mean if it's a s17das four deck game then it's allways better to split the fours against a six rather than double (pg 267 appendix A)
apparently you would hit rather than split at a tc of eighteen. see bottom image.

i tried it out for a particular instance with k_c's tdca, errhh an eight deck s17das game per the original poster.
i fooled around a little with tdca for an eight deck s17das game and so far couldn't find any instance where one wouldn't split the fours against a six.
Click to expand...


Good job, thanks for the reserach.


Your Friend,
CP
 
My 2 cents:

If DAS allowed and using HiLo, split 44 vs 6 at TC >= -4; double at TC >= 2 (both to maximize EV).
 
creeping panther said:
Good job, thanks for the reserach.


Your Friend,
CP
Click to expand...

lmao, wel my friend it would'a been good research, if i hadn't of screwed it up, lmao..........
i just deleted my posts on this 44v6 stuff, ...........
hopefully some one can correctly interpret Wong's appendix A.
i'm at this point confused.:confused::whip:

maybe after my head stops spinning i'll re-run tdca.:rolleyes:

edit: i think it's for four deck s17das (essentially multiple deck) that you would always split 44vs6 unless the tc<-2 then you would hit.
apparently unless you know the composition dependent ev you'd never want to double.
 
Last edited:
Sage

sagefr0g said:
lmao, wel my friend it would'a been good research, if i hadn't of screwed it up, lmao..........
i just deleted my posts on this 44v6 stuff, ...........
hopefully some one can correctly interpret Wong's appendix A.
i'm at this point confused.:confused::whip:

maybe after my head stops spinning i'll re-run tdca.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In a DAS game there will be times when this will become a thinking players move.. decision. There could be alot at play here that will alter the decision. I saw it at the BASH, split 3's in a very high count pull 2 13's as expected with very big bets out, is it the right move.........again a highly skilled player will be running things through their minds as if they were the latest duo core processor, and even at that it could take many seconds. I saw this happen, once with D-Bo, and also with my play. This is why we do all that we do, and expend all that effort, because in certain circumstances you may..must go against the CW. Very fine games, as we played, offer so many more opportunitys and play decisions than other games, and they also offer far more challenges.

One of the games I will be playing next weekend is a very good DD but as with many DD, no das, no DDOSA, d-10-11 and LS-s-17. Now that game takes alot of higher level decisions out of play, and is actually less challenging than the 6d that I will also be playing next weekend that has the best rules in the USA, but also gives me a myriad of indices and plays to consider, employ, and very much complicates matters.

But these are all the challenges that make the game fun for me, the competition, the math, and the joy of coming out on top. Oh ya, the food is good too:)

CP
 
Wrong index maybe

Okay I turn over pg 113 and I see Atlantic City mods for DAS, the AC mods title got me off track. I have been way off if I have DAS on the split options.

RE pg: 114 Table 8-3 MD Blackjack Uston we see -3,-5,-7,-9 for 22 v 2345 as opposed to 10,3,-3,-7 from pg 113. A world of difference.

My question for QFIT is if the game lets me DAS as it did in default should I be using the more liberal DAS table vs. the split table on p113.

I need to study CVBJ better and perhaps I need to input my own table.

I am glad I got into this topic with you all. It has lead me from the darkness.
 
Automatic Monkey said:
Yes for DAS games, and it's a play that doesn't get done in negative counts.

My favorite negative indices are DD 9 vs. 3 and 10 vs. 9. In SD games you end up using a whole mess of indices.
Click to expand...

if i had to choose one index in DD that has "saved my ass" time and again, it would be 9v3. probably not the most important negative index but that stands out the most in what must be my selective memory :devil:
 
I called qfit today and he got me straightened out on the index for splitting with his system. Thanks for you help today.
 
My favorite indices are:

  • 9 vs. 2,7
  • 8 vs. 6.5
  • 9-9 vs. Ace, 7
  • 3-3 vs. 7,8
  • 2-2 vs. 7,8
  • 4-4 vs. 4

Edited to clarify:

the 2's and 3's vs. 7 is a basic strategy split (with DAS) but they becomes
Hits at moderate negative counts, just like against the dealer's Deuce or Trey.
 
Last edited:
Meistro said:
Maybe when the count is high those hands are just a hit?
Click to expand...

No the high count is what makes them splits instead of hits.

I agree on the 8 vs 56 and also like a8 vs 45 both at very low pos counts.

Can you believe I have been looking at no das index data for 20 years now.

I am going to have some double teaming tots tearing up that felt.(22, 33 splits v 2,3)

I had a chance to use a a7 v 7 double and win the other night and really dig that rare a9 double.
 
I made my first 73 vs X double today. Pulled an ace. Felt like a god. My other hand was 18 and dealer had an 8 underneath, was a positively massive win and felt amazing. Running count was 17 with 3 decks remaining.
 
I love the look on the faces of people calling me insane and what not when I double my a8 vs a dealer 3. It's priceless especially when I get another ace for a nice 20 :)
 
Yesterday i made a play that i have never made for significant money.

I split 9's against a dealer 4 at an absolutely astronomical true count.

The first [Max Bet] hand was a "no-brainer". 19. I Waved it off.

On the second hand though, I had to stop the dealer from proceeding past me.

An Ace had joined my 9 making for a second 20.

I hit and caught another Ace !

The dealer's mouth fell open, but before he could utter a sound, I said "color me up."
 
Last edited:
Meistro said:
Why didn't you double? :P
Click to expand...

+1 if i understand Flash's post. He caught an Ace on the second 9 and decided to hit that at an astronomical count? if anything you would double (not sure what count you use), or stand if the index does not call for it yet. why on earth would you hit that? i hope you meant to type "double"!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top