12 against a dealer 2 or 3 up card

[glovesetc]

playing at a table with say 4 players and there is a 12 before you and he hits and you have 12 do you need to hit as there has already been a card taken ? I find everytime or alot of the time when I also hit I take the dealers bust card and am also busted . Any theories on this problem . You are playing an 8 deck game , DAS17, no surreneder , and a decent pen ND THE DEALER HAS A 2 OR 3 UP ? SORRY SHOULD OF BEEN MORE SPECIFIC BEFORE . TY in advance

 

[Reno Dude]

playing at a table with say 4 players and there is a 12 before you and he hits and you have 13 do you need to hit as there has already been a card taken ? I find everytime or alot of the time when I also hit I take the dealers bust card and am also busted . Any theories on this problem .ty in advance

I thought you're suppose to stand with a 13 with a dealer 2 showing....

 

[Mimosine]

there are no theories....

the fact of the matter is that standing on 13 v 2 is the CORRECT (BS) play.

the more you deviate from BS, the faster you will lose money.

 

[eps6724]

there are no theories....

the fact of the matter is that standing on 13 v 2 is the CORRECT (BS) play.

the more you deviate from BS, the faster you will lose money.

O.K., change a bit of the question. Your running count has fallen, you're not wonging (for whatever reason) and the count now indicates an AP indice play of hit. Your bet is of course determined BEFORE the cards are dealt. Because the running count keeps changing, do you (1) play your indices based on the count WHEN YOU DETERMINE BET, or do you (2) make the indice play based upon the count at the time of YOUR next card out. (I guess this would speak to how you 'count' the table).

It's probably a stupid question, given that the running count would be so close as to make almost no difference, but...

And no one mentioned the 'dealer's bust card'!:grin:
-EPS

 

[eps6724]

Now that the numbers have changed, but still...there are AP indices for hitting AND/OR standing on 12 v. 2 or 12 v. 3, so see above for rest of mindless question.

And I won't make another crack about the 'dealer bust card':grin:
-EPS

 

[avs21]

O.K., change a bit of the question. Your running count has fallen, you're not wonging (for whatever reason) and the count now indicates an AP indice play of hit. Your bet is of course determined BEFORE the cards are dealt. Because the running count keeps changing, do you (1) play your indices based on the count WHEN YOU DETERMINE BET, or do you (2) make the indice play based upon the count at the time of YOUR next card out. (I guess this would speak to how you 'count' the table).

It's probably a stupid question, given that the running count would be so close as to make almost no difference, but...

And no one mentioned the 'dealer's bust card'!:grin:
-EPS

Number two is correct you should make you index plays based upon every card you have seen. You always want to take adv of all the information that you are given. It becomes even more important if it’s towards the end of the shoe.

 

[eps6724]

Number two is correct you should make you index plays based upon every card you have seen. You always want to take adv of all the information that you are given. It becomes even more important if it’s towards the end of the shoe.

That's what I thought, but glad to have it validated.

 

[Mimosine]

Number two is correct you should make you index plays based upon every card you have seen. You always want to take adv of all the information that you are given. It becomes even more important if it’s towards the end of the shoe.

what s/he said.
additionally, negative index plays are far less common than pos index plays. in fact you will usually only use them in sd or dd games. in shoe games they are less reliable/accurate and in shoe games you should be wonging out in neg counts, not looking for neg index play. in pitch games you usually don't have the "wong-out" luxory.

 

[Kasi]

negative index plays are far less common than pos index plays... in shoe games they are less reliable/accurate...

I was just wondering why u think negative index plays are less reliable/accurate in shoe games. I guess u mean compared to 1 or 2 deck games? Or less reliable than positive counts in the same game? And what it is that makes u think they are less common than positive index plays? Assuming a play-all approach of course, since it's obviously irrelevant if u wong out all the time.

Certainly they are less important since one would always (or almost always) have the minimum bet out in negative counts but why less accurate?

Anyway, interesting thought as to whether one would lose less flat-betting all negative indices than one would gain flat-betting all positive indices.

 

[glovesetc]

TY all

for the answers given out and i see the difference in the shoe game as that is all the casino I play at offers . There are no single or DD games offered .

 

[eps6724]

Certainly they are less important since one would always (or almost always) have the minimum bet out in negative counts but why less accurate?

Anyway, interesting thought as to whether one would lose less flat-betting all negative indices than one would gain flat-betting all positive indices.

Why less important? Isn't the name of the game to ultimately MAKE money? Besides, if the count is falling, more LOW cards remain, so you have a bit more information to play on, and (as has been cleared up) you are gathering every bit of information you can, why would you not take advantage of every bit you can???

As to the second part-we put down large bets at high counts because high cards favor us-and we're betting that they will come out, making the count fall, right? So, low cards=dealer+, high cards=us+, we could probably extrapolate that a flat bet on negative iindices would be equal to flat-bet positive because either way we're playing an advantage. due to the count/indice play. (I think).

 

[Mikeaber]

I saw nothing in the original post nor in the second post by glovesetc that would indicate that he is counting, particularly in regards to the reference to "taking the dealer's bust card", other than a mention of "pen." Considering that and the topic that this was posted in:

ALWAYS hit a 12 against a dealer's 2 or 3 with no concern as to what someone playing before you had or did if you are playing Basic Strategy without the information obtained by counting.

 

[SPX]

It is, at times, intelligent to use the cards on the board to make playing decisions. Consider this: Four players: K-J, 10-Q, K-K, Q-J . . . and you with 9-2.

Would you still double against the dealer's 10 up? I wouldn't.

 

[Cardcounter]

To answer your question.

12 vs a 2 or 3 up is a very close call and you can stand with it if you want to. I would recomend standing with that hand if the remaining cards left in the shoe is unusually rich with tens. If the shoe has a normal amount of tens in it or is lacking in tens I would recomend hitting. If other players around you are holding tens in there hands hit if they have no tens stay.

 

[Kasi]

Why less important? Isn't the name of the game to ultimately MAKE money? Besides, if the count is falling, more LOW cards remain, so you have a bit more information to play on, and (as has been cleared up) you are gathering every bit of information you can, why would you not take advantage of every bit you can???

As to the second part-we put down large bets at high counts because high cards favor us-and we're betting that they will come out, making the count fall, right? So, low cards=dealer+, high cards=us+, we could probably extrapolate that a flat bet on negative iindices would be equal to flat-bet positive because either way we're playing an advantage. due to the count/indice play. (I think).

Perhaps less important was a poor choice of words. I meant it in the sense that it contributes alot less to one's overall gain because of the minimum bet.

Let's face it, there aren't too many I18 plays with negative indices and the ones that are there don't contribute very much.

I didn't mean one shouldn't do it when it's called for so that you will lose less.

But I guess I've always assumed all the indices were just about equally accurate in predicting the time when it was right to depart from BS. So, mostly, I was just wondering why they were characterized as less reliable and less common.

If anything I'd guess negative counts occur more frequently than positive counts.

 

[Kasi]

It is, at times, intelligent to use the cards on the board to make playing decisions. Consider this: Four players: K-J, 10-Q, K-K, Q-J . . . and you with 9-2.

Would you still double against the dealer's 10 up? I wouldn't.

I guess I probably would, knowing nothing else, since it's really not a very close play in most games.

So, I guess I'm not a big fan, in general, of deviating from BS based on the cards visible that particular round.

 

[Kasi]

12 vs a 2 or 3 up is a very close call and you can stand with it if you want to.

Do what u want of course but I don't think they are particularly close plays at all and not justified to stay just because other players that round are not showing 10's.


I'm not sure I'm getting this "depart from BS based on the cards on the table" stuff.


But, cool, if ur counting!

 

[SPX]

I'm not sure I'm getting this "depart from BS based on the cards on the table" stuff.

Well, I'm sure it's probably not a new idea and I suppose to ligitimize it in your mind I'll have to appeal to a source you trust. In Bluebook II, Fred Renzy even talks about it and has a handful of rules for occasions in which you would deviate from BS based upon.

My explanation is that the cards in a deck generally remain RELATIVELY balanced. Granted, sometimes a whole lot of high cards will get bunched together and sometimes a whole lot of low cards will get bunched together, but that's the exception and not the rule. So if there are a disproportionate amount of small cards on the board, you know that more than likely you'll be seeing some high cards soon.

One of Renzy's examples includes: 16 vs 10 up

If there are more "babies" (2s-5s) on the board than 10-value cards, then stand.

 

[Kasi]

Well, I'm sure it's probably not a new idea and I suppose to ligitimize it in your mind I'll have to appeal to a source you trust. In Bluebook II, Fred Renzy even talks about it and has a handful of rules for occasions in which you would deviate from BS based upon.

One of Renzy's examples includes: 16 vs 10 up

If there are more "babies" (2s-5s) on the board than 10-value cards, then stand.

Guess all I'm saying is that it could be dangerous to just depart from BS because u think the cards on the table at the time justify it.

But, if u must, I'd go along with 16 vs 10 because it's such a close play in the first place. Other plays maybe I'd go along with it might be 12 vs 4 or 6, maybe even 13 vs 2 because they are also close plays.

But, in your example of doubling 11 vs 10, I think the excess 10's on the board would lead you into making the wrong play despite the apparent logic of their not being enough 10's left to justify the double. After all, the index number for that play is TC-4 and a running count of -8 in your example is nowhere near enough to justify the departure. I doubt if Fred included 11 vs 10 as an example. What other plays did he recommend? Did he really suggest 12 vs 2 or 3?

So, if u r going to do this, maybe just stick to the plays he recommended but not just make up your own. In other words stick to plays whose index number is 0 and u'll have a much better chance of having made the right play.

Better yet, just stick to BS because maybe the reason all those "babies" just came out was because the deck was negative at the start of the round and might still be and therefore u should still be hitting that 16 vs 10.

 

[sabre]

\
Better yet, just stick to BS because maybe the reason all those "babies" just came out was because the deck was negative at the start of the round and might still be and therefore u should still be hitting that 16 vs 10.

By that logic, we might as well pass on cardcounting altogether, since the excess Ts and As might all be stuck behind the cut card.

This statement has some very flawed logic behind it. If you aren't counting the cards from previous rounds, then they are unknowns. If I jump into a 6 deck game with 1 deck cutoff, but after 1 deck has already been dealt, I am in the exact same situtation as had I started fresh on a game with 2 decks cutoff. The fact that the cards have been played is of no meaning to me, because I didn't see them. But that doesn't mean I can't start counting that round. I just have to mentally remove the 1 deck from the discard tray when making TC conversions.

If you aren't counting cards, there are plays close enough that just analyzing the cards on the board in the current round can change the way you play a hand, even in a 6 deck game. Sure, the net count from the previous rounds might have been +12. But maybe it was -12. Or maybe 0. Doesn't matter --- I'm just working off the information I have at hand, the cards currently visible on the board that round. The majority of the gain comes from using that additional info on your 16vT decisions. I don't think its really worth it for a basic strategy player to bother with any other board-dependent plays, but it is possible to alter the way you play your 9v2, 11vA, 8v6, 12v4, 12v3 etc. The problem is, these situations come up so infrequently (due to the fact that they require a 5+ card imbalance on that round in a 6 deck game)

Renzey spends a few pages discussing this in his book, but he concedes that there isn't a huge amount of gain to be realized in shoes. In SD and DD though, there is a lot more value to using board composition to augment your basic strategy.