7 7 vs 8

[xengrifter]

Speaking about Ken Smith strategy cards, last night there was a guy, a real mashugana, I told him, "Sir, they sell the chart at the gift shop," after I saw him make a really bad play...
... He said he had the chart, he bought it on Amazon, but he didn't like to use it because it bothers the other players when he takes time to look up a play.
... I told him fuck the other players get the damn chart out on the table! He's back an hour later with his chart, and it was Ken's!

 

[21forme]

a real mashugana, I told him,

You mean he was from Michigan?
Seriously, I'm surprised you would use such a word, considering the anti-Semitic vitriol you allow on your forum.

BTW, speaking of strategy cards, I was once playing MS Stud and the player next to me had a basic strategy card for it. I didn't know such a thing existed, but yes, and on the bottom it said produced by James Grosjean.

 

[xengrifter]

Seriously, I'm surprised you would use such a word, considering the anti-Semitic vitriol you allow on your forum.

The term mashugana is anti-Semitic??
That's news to me, all the Jewish side of my family have used it for ages! It's a Yiddish Ashkenazi word ... It means loco-pendejo in Espanol...
... So this crazy yahoo later runs into me at the Starbucks food court area, and I tell him I forgot to say don't play the sucker bets, they will eat you alive! And he tells me that the strategy card isn't working very well, but he's making all his money off the sucker bets!

Oy vey mashugana!

 

[BetWise21]

I thought it might really be minutia, 3 vs 4 vs 5 TC, but I’m old and bored.

 

[21forme]

The term mashugana is anti-Semitic??

No, that's not what I meant. Let me be clearer: Given your ancestry, I'm surprised you permit the anti-Semitic vitriol by one specific misanthrope on your forum.

 

[xengrifter]

We have busted many anti-semitic posts over the years, but we have also allowed many posts that were accused of anti-semitism but were actually criticizing Israel. But now enough up this off topic stuff, this is a blackjack board, right?

 

[MJGolf]

I have purchased Ken's cards and they seem accurate to me when comparing to books like Don's. Glad he responded. But I truly think it's just a difference of flooring v. another method of calculating the index. Man, 1 number difference is SO close sometimes that I agree with Snyder, that it can't matter too much in the overall scheme of things. And Don sometimes puts out the numbers in cents difference per play. I wonder what the true percentage of hands will occur that you will see 7 7 v. 8 in your total playing hours? Don probably knows off the top of his head but since splits occur the least of other hand combinations, I bet it's not a great number.

 

[DSchles]

The frequency of the holding is what distinguishes the conditional values from the absolute values. One is based on the condition that you already have the holding. The absolute is the penatly that factors in the frequency of the hand.

This is why all pair indices, except 10s, are worth so little; the frequency of any xx, vs. y holding, where x is 2-9, and y is anything but 10, is once every 2,272 hands for 6-deck. So, maybe once every 23 hours, just to see the holding. Now, on top of that, you have to have the required true count! So, for, say, +4 or higher, maybe 10% of the time. So now you make the play once every 230 hours!

Finally, if you're just AT the index, the difference is so minimal that you've waited 230 hours to earn $5. Do you see how utterly worthless the whole thing is?

Don

 

[xengrifter]

Finally, if you're just AT the index, the difference is so minimal that you've waited 230 hours to earn $5. Do you see how utterly worthless the whole thing is?

Hey, if I waited 230 hours, 30,000 hands of blackjack, and I get that holding...
... I sure as hell I'm going to get my $5 worth! Hell yes!

 

[MJGolf]

Hey, if I waited 230 hours, 30,000 hands of blackjack, and I get that holding...
... I sure as hell I'm going to get my $5 worth! Hell yes!

And then you would promptly throw the $5 to the dealer as a tip, declaring, "I've been waiting 230 hours to do this"..........just to counteract the minimal gain in your overall EV JUST for fun!!!! LOL

 

[aceside]

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.

Can you also list the indices for 3,3 vs 8, and 2,2 vs 8? Of these three indices, I find the one for 3,3 vs 8 should be the lowest, but this seems not the case from your results.

 

[The G Man]

For the 6 decks game:
3,3 vs 8 = +4
2,2 vs 8 = +5

For Single deck, Wong gives 0 and +11 respectively.

 

[gronbog]

For the 6 deck game 2,2 vs 8, 3,3 vs 8 and 7,7 vs 8 are all an extremely close call between TC=+3 and TC=+7. They are among the most time consuming plays to resolve when generating indices. As Don says, the deviation (to split) is already quite rare at +5, +4 and +4 respectively. Now consider that, because of the extra variance, these should all probably be played in a more risk averse way than the EV alone suggests, making the counts to strike even higher and therefore even more rare.

These are truly plays not worth worrying about.

 

[moraine]

For the 6 deck game 2,2 vs 8, 3,3 vs 8 and 7,7 vs 8 are all an extremely close call between TC=+3 and TC=+7. They are among the most time consuming plays to resolve when generating indices. As Don says, the deviation (to split) is already quite rare at +5, +4 and +4 respectively. Now consider that, because of the extra variance, these should all probably be played in a more risk averse way than the EV alone suggests, making the counts to strike even higher and therefore even more rare.

These are truly plays not worth worrying about.

If you also have the purpose of presenting/camouflaging yourself as a rank novice or an erratic player, NOT A CALCULATED CARD COUNTER, in addition to winning more when the opportunities present themselves, splitting 2-2 vs 8, 7-7 vs 8, or any of those COUNTER-INTUITIVE PLAYS like splitting 9-9 vs A, the plays are worthwhile.

 

[aceside]

For the 6 deck game 2,2 vs 8, 3,3 vs 8 and 7,7 vs 8 are all an extremely close call between TC=+3 and TC=+7. They are among the most time consuming plays to resolve when generating indices. As Don says, the deviation (to split) is already quite rare at +5, +4 and +4 respectively. Now consider that, because of the extra variance, these should all probably be played in a more risk averse way than the EV alone suggests, making the counts to strike even higher and therefore even more rare.

These are truly plays not worth worrying about.

I actually think the other way. All these three hands strongly depend on the densities of neutral cards of 7, 8, 9 and this means that the correlation between hilo and their respective deviation index is very weak. The 7,7vs8 situation is slightly different because it also depends on the 2,3,4 cards. I tend to believe that we cannot entirely rely on simulation softwares to play these hands. Practically I often split all these pairs at TC +3.

 

[gronbog]

The point is that whatever you do with these hands, you will do it so infrequently and with so little difference in EV that it will not matter in the long run.

 

[DSchles]

The point is that whatever you do with these hands, you will do it so infrequently and with so little difference in EV that it will not matter in the long run.

Maybe we ought to try to quantify just how much each deviation is worth, depending on rules and bet spread, and then rank them, beyond the I18 or Catch 22, in order of their importance.

Do you think players might be interested in seeing that?

Don

 

[aceside]

Maybe we ought to try to quantify just how much each deviation is worth, depending on rules and bet spread, and then rank them, beyond the I18 or Catch 22, in order of their importance.

Do you think players might be interested in seeing that?

Don

I am more interested in comparing side countings of aces and sevens. which one gives a larger return?

 

[The G Man]

Aceside, why are you trolling every f... thread in the BJ world ?

 

[aceside]

Aceside, why are you trolling every f... thread in the BJ world ?

Pandemic has made me isolated from the world and I want to take this opportunity to refine my blackjack skills to see if I have some talents in this field. I will take a break for a few months.