13 vs. 10 at high counts
- Thread starter Dopple
- Start date
Think of it this way:
13 vs. TEN is little different than 12 vs. TEN
There is NO index where it is correct to stand on that 12.
Why not ? Think about it for a moment.
At a VERY high True Count the TENS are dominant.
The dealer's likelihood of having a pat 20 radically increases with a growing T.C.
Simultaneous with that is your chances of "busting" your 12/13
IF the dealer's hole card is a small one then he MAY "bust — or not.
IF you draw a card and hit a small card, your situation actually WORSENS,
because you will never draw a 4th card at a high T.C. — and the T.C. has increased slightly.
Your only likely winning route is to draw a 3rd card — hoping for a 7 or 8 — cards that your count is unlikely to include.
So … you reflexively HIT.
13 vs. TEN is little different than 12 vs. TEN
There is NO index where it is correct to stand on that 12.
Why not ? Think about it for a moment.
At a VERY high True Count the TENS are dominant.
The dealer's likelihood of having a pat 20 radically increases with a growing T.C.
Simultaneous with that is your chances of "busting" your 12/13
IF the dealer's hole card is a small one then he MAY "bust — or not.
IF you draw a card and hit a small card, your situation actually WORSENS,
because you will never draw a 4th card at a high T.C. — and the T.C. has increased slightly.
Your only likely winning route is to draw a 3rd card — hoping for a 7 or 8 — cards that your count is unlikely to include.
So … you reflexively HIT.
Last edited:
Rich Victor actually has an index for this hand for the VAPC @+30 http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BlackjackTherapy.htm
Since the UAPC has a pe of .69 you could actually generate your own with cvdata, since it reckons the 8, if you really wanted. Not necessary though, unless you play strictly single deck.
EDIT: Not sure, what TC method you use but CVdata, is spitting out +31 per full decks or +15 per half deck, which seems to be what you use, according to your 14vX index.
Since the UAPC has a pe of .69 you could actually generate your own with cvdata, since it reckons the 8, if you really wanted. Not necessary though, unless you play strictly single deck.
EDIT: Not sure, what TC method you use but CVdata, is spitting out +31 per full decks or +15 per half deck, which seems to be what you use, according to your 14vX index.
Last edited:
12 and 13 in high counts and wild cards
With most counting systems we do not account for some very important cards in this situation. A 7 can turn a 13 into a winner and an 8 gives you a hand that can not lose. An 8 will turn a 12 often into a winner and a 9 gives you a hand that can not lose. These are wild or unpredictible cards for you with these hands or for the dealer if the dealer is the person with the 12 or 13.
These are the kind of hands where if computers were legal, you might see the advantage of computer counting compared to our counting systems because unless you are Rainman, you are not keeping side counts of 7,8 or 9.
It really comes down to not if you will win or lose with your 13 vs 10 but how much you are going to lose over time if you hit on it or stand on it. Though your hand is a net loser, every simulation ever made shows you will lose less by hitting than standing on these low stiffs at just about any count.
With most counting systems we do not account for some very important cards in this situation. A 7 can turn a 13 into a winner and an 8 gives you a hand that can not lose. An 8 will turn a 12 often into a winner and a 9 gives you a hand that can not lose. These are wild or unpredictible cards for you with these hands or for the dealer if the dealer is the person with the 12 or 13.
These are the kind of hands where if computers were legal, you might see the advantage of computer counting compared to our counting systems because unless you are Rainman, you are not keeping side counts of 7,8 or 9.
It really comes down to not if you will win or lose with your 13 vs 10 but how much you are going to lose over time if you hit on it or stand on it. Though your hand is a net loser, every simulation ever made shows you will lose less by hitting than standing on these low stiffs at just about any count.