7 7 vs 8

[BetWise21]

I have the Ken Smith strategy cards and have learned from them. They have an index of 3 to split 7 7 vs 8 in a das H17 game, Wong has an index of 5. Thoughts ? I believe both resources use a floored TC conversions.

 

[DSchles]

How many decks?

Don

 

[BetWise21]

I’m mostly interested in 6 deck H17 das, but Ken Smiths cards have it as 3 for 6 deck S17 das and 2 deck H17 das. I’ve seen 4 and 5 as well.



sorry my typo, I meant to type, " 3 for 6 deck S17 das and 6 deck H17 das " not 2 deck

 

[DSchles]

I’m mostly interested in 6 deck H17 das, but Ken Smiths cards have it as 3 for 6 deck S17 das and 2 deck H17 das. I’ve seen 4 and 5 as well.

Obviously, DAS or NDAS is all that matters here. H17 or S17 isn't relevant with the dealer's upcard of 8. For Hi-Lo, the 2-deck DAS index is 0. This is a BS play, so indices of +3 or +5 make no sense at all, and would be clearly wrong. For 6-deck, the DAS index is +4.

Don

 

[BetWise21]

4 it is before I split, I realize it’s a defensive move. I’ll credit the outcome to you as if you placed the cut card in the deck.

 

[xengrifter]

This is a BS play, so indices of +3 or +5 make no sense at all,

Hey hey pssst - that's our sponsor!

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Hey hey pssst - that's our sponsor!

What the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[xengrifter]

This is a BS play, so indices of +3 .... make no sense at all, and would be clearly wrong.

Hey hey pssst - that's our sponsor!

What the fuck are you even talking about?

DonS said the +3 index for 2D is bogus in KSmith's strategy card. Ken is the site founder.

 

[DSchles]

DonS said the +3 index for 2D is bogus in KSmith's strategy card. Ken is the site founder.

Not saying Ken is/was wrong. He rarely was. I do't have the cards. But the zero is for DAS, which makes sense, as splitting is BS for DD, DAS. Can't imagine that Ken didn't realize that.

Don

 

[xengrifter]

Not saying Ken is/was wrong. He rarely was. I do't have the cards. But the zero is for DAS, which makes sense, as splitting is BS for DD, DAS. Can't imagine that Ken didn't realize that.

I don't have the cards either, I thought his cards were only BS charts ....
.... But now I feel we must get to the bottom of this!

 

[KenSmith]

Thanks xengrifter for pointing me to this thread.

I just looked at the cards, and the 2D H17 index mentioned above is not as described by BetWise21.

To clarify, here are what my cards show for splitting 77v8 (DAS only in each case):

1 Deck H17 DAS index is -4.
1 Deck S17 DAS index is -5.
(These should be the same, yet they are not. I ran the calculations for each rule variation, even for occasions when S17 and H17 are identical. The fact that I got indexes that differ by 1 indicates this is a very close call between -4 and -5.)

2 Deck H17 DAS index is -1.
2 Deck S17 DAS index is -1.

6 Deck H17 DAS index is +3.
6 Deck S17 DAS index is +3.

So, with the exception of the small variation in 1-deck, I'll stick with these indexes. The difference between DonS' 2D index of 0 compared to my -1 is minimal, and could be a difference in methodology or assumptions.

I probably have some notes here somewhere about the exact methodology I used, but it will suffice to say that it was a long iterative process of fine-tuning indexes, and repeating until things stopped changing. I used Qfit's software to create them, and lots of hours.

If anyone is concerned about a difference here or there by a point (or sometimes even two!), they should spend some time generating indexes themselves. They'll soon see why published references often differ a little. Small assumptions can have unexpected impacts, and some decisions are simply very, very close. You really can just relax and use the numbers.

 

[xengrifter]

I have never run a true simulation personally ...
...but I am guessing that some of these differences arise due to different assumptions of deck penetration?

 

[DSchles]

Thanks xengrifter for pointing me to this thread.

I just looked at the cards, and the 2D H17 index mentioned above is not as described by BetWise21.

To clarify, here are what my cards show for splitting 77v8 (DAS only in each case):

1 Deck H17 DAS index is -4.
1 Deck S17 DAS index is -5.
(These should be the same, yet they are not. I ran the calculations for each rule variation, even for occasions when S17 and H17 are identical. The fact that I got indexes that differ by 1 indicates this is a very close call between -4 and -5.)

2 Deck H17 DAS index is -1.
2 Deck S17 DAS index is -1.

6 Deck H17 DAS index is +3.
6 Deck S17 DAS index is +3.

So, with the exception of the small variation in 1-deck, I'll stick with these indexes. The difference between DonS' 2D index of 0 compared to my -1 is minimal, and could be a difference in methodology or assumptions.

I probably have some notes here somewhere about the exact methodology I used, but it will suffice to say that it was a long iterative process of fine-tuning indexes, and repeating until things stopped changing. I used Qfit's software to create them, and lots of hours.

If anyone is concerned about a difference here or there by a point (or sometimes even two!), they should spend some time generating indexes themselves. They'll soon see why published references often differ a little. Small assumptions can have unexpected impacts, and some decisions are simply very, very close. You really can just relax and use the numbers.

Thanks, Ken. Nice to hear from you. The only comment I have is that, if we both used Norm's software, we should have gotten the same results, since the only assumptions are clearly stated above, so long as you used flooring for the methodology (again, H17 and S17 are superfluous). And, for DD, the "Beat to Death" number was zero, while the 6-deck index was +4. It is possible, of course, that Norm made some changes to his software between the time you did your calculations and a week ago, when I did mine.

If you have the latest versions, try it yourself; it takes but a couple of minutes, and it would be nice to get your confirmation.

Don

 

[KenSmith]

The only comment I have is that, if we both used Norm's software, we should have gotten the same results, since the only assumptions are clearly stated above, so long as you used flooring for the methodology

Splitting indexes can also be affected by using different hit/stand indexes, so it could be related to that.
I'm unlikely to dust off a Windows machine to check it, but I'll consider it in February after my return from adventures in Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras.
I suppose it is possible that Norm made updates that could affect it, but that seems unlikely.

 

[21forme]

Ken - Just a hello. Nice to see your presence here after so many years!

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Ken - Just a hello. Nice to see your prescence here after so many years!

I agree. And I trust both Ken and Don when it comes to such things...I just use the numbers I am told. A slight difference doesn't concern me much.

 

[Meistro]

did u play blackjack while in latin america? how were the games?

 

[BetWise21]

I appreciate the responses. I did misquote Mr. Smith's 2D card (typo). My only interest was Multi Deck DAS H17 and Smith's +3 and Wong's +5 index numbers, that's a difference of 2. I recently lost a 7, 7 split vs a dealer 8 with large bets out. It is an odd move to me because the larger the index the more tens, and one might think the result would approach a result of 17 and 17 losing to a dealer 18, but I suppose it's a defensive move like 8, 8 vs a high dealer up card. 14 vs 8 is not fun either. I am just trying to justify the index in my mind and commit to the one that makes the most sense to me. I believe both references are for floored conversions which it what I use.

 

[BetWise21]

Wow, I just reread Ken Smith's #14 post and realize that the original split index is related to the hit, stand, double and ( if allowed ) resplit indexes that you might use after the original split.

 

[xengrifter]

I recently lost a 7, 7 split vs a dealer 8 with large bets out. It is an odd move to me because the larger the index the more tens, and one might think the result would approach a result of 17 and 17 losing to a dealer 18, but I suppose it's a defensive move like 8, 8 vs a high dealer up card. 14 vs 8 is not fun either. I am just trying to justify the index in my mind and commit to the one that makes the most sense to me.

Neither index is the "correct" one - you are correct that the move is defensive and not fun, except it's really fun when it wins, like splitting eights against 10.
... You could split the difference and call it +4
... Or you could determine your own psychological comfort, and choose + 3 to get into the defensive move sooner, or it might be more personally comfortable for you to take the extreme defense move later at + 5

Either way, think of it as an unpleasant thing like pulling off a Band-Aid - personally I'd rather do it sooner than later.

Sure you will get those two hard 17s with max bets against dealer 18 - but on occasion you will also get two max bet double downs with high counts.

Ps- Don just called to remind everyone that this index has negligible instrumental value, and for a black Chip player using it will add about $0.25 per year to the bottom line.