16 VS Ace

S

shinyam

Well-Known Member
Stanford Wong's book says to stay at +8 or higher, but the Gamemaster and all other sources say it's +3. Why the huge difference?

I think it must be a typo in Wong's book. I've been using his number all this time, and I keep busting my 16 against Ace at high counts, and when the dealer has nothing under, he gets tens and breaks.

This has to be wrong, right?
 
N

NightStalker

Well-Known Member
i think

standford book gives hi-lo +3 on h17 6deck game and Cvdata RA gives +4.
I guess both are close and good to go..
 
1

1357111317

Well-Known Member
I dont know why RA indices would change for hit or stand decisions. They should only change for doubling, splitting and surrendering situations.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
apparently it's circa tc>=8 for s17 & circa tc>=4 for h17, errh at least for a six deck game, backed up i believe by the images below from kc's tdca.
at least for the particular instance depicted
note: the hit stand numbers in red....
all that pretty close to Wong's bs deviations.
interesting the disparity between S17 & H17
 

Attachments

bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
sagefr0g said:
apparently it's circa tc>=8 for s17 & circa tc>=4 for h17, errh at least for a six deck game, backed up i believe by the images below from kc's tdca.
at least for the particular instance depicted
note: the hit stand numbers in red....
all that pretty close to Wong's bs deviations.
interesting the disparity between S17 & H17
Click to expand...
You're right Fr0gman,
There's also a huge difference between H-17 and S-17 with an A,7 v. A .
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
" … difference between H-17 and S-17 with an A,7 v. A ."

What indexes / indices are you getting for these ?

I use +2 for S17 and +1 for H17
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top