# 7 7 vs 8

#### DSchles

##### Well-Known Member
moraine said:
With all due respect to MIT team members, they are very outdated. Good for stories only. THE ART OF SCIENCE OF BLACKJACK DID NOT STOP IN 1980s or 1990s or even 2000s.
You are fucking unbelievable. Did I say he stopped playing? What's wrong with you? If you don't have something intelligent to say, which you never do, why don't you consider just shutting up?

Don

#### moraine

##### Well-Known Member
I have something VERY INTELLIGENT TO SAY, EXCEPT I NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO SAY IT FREELY AND COMPLETELY BEFORE BEING ASKED TO SHUT UP.

#### aceside

##### Active Member
DSchles said:
This could be the stupidest thread and conversation I've seen in a while, and believe me when I tell you there's no scarcity of idiocy on blackjack sites.

Aceside and Moraine, you're debating with a former member of the MIT team who forgets more about BJ every day than the both of you combined will ever know in two lifetimes.

NO pair split--NONE!!--other than splitting tens, is worth even a single cent an hour for a player with a \$10,000 bankroll, and most are worth much, much less than that. Using the word "valuable" in the same sentence as "7,7 vs. 8" makes the writer sound like an imbecile.

Don
I have done some research on this topic on the six-deck game. By calculating the effect of removal (EOR) on the hit/splitting decision, I find the critical cards for each of these three hands:

For 7,7 vs 8, the EOR critical cards are 5, 6, and 7.
For 3,3 vs 8, the EOR critical cards are 2, 3, 4, and 5.
For 2,2 vs 8, the EOR critical cards are 2, 3, 4, and 5.

This means that the HiLo is weakly correlated to the hit/splitting decision for 7,7 vs 8; however, side-counting 7s will help this decision, with more 7s toward less splitting. This also means that the HiLo is strongly correlated to the hit/splitting decision for both hands of 3,3 vs 8 and 2,2,vs 8. Furthermore, I find that the HiLo index for 2,2 vs 8 should be a lot higher than 3,3 vs 8.

#### 21forme

##### Well-Known Member
DSchles said:
This could be the stupidest thread and conversation I've seen in a while
Not sure how you can say that, Don. EVERY thread where aceside comments is the stupidest. In his 300ish posts on BJTF, and who knows how many here, he's probably never made a correct statement.

#### gronbog

##### Well-Known Member
aceside said:
Furthermore, I find that the HiLo index for 2,2 vs 8 should be a lot higher than 3,3 vs 8.
As usual, you are wrong.

Don is right about the non-value of these three plays from an EV perspective and I have also said it. It has also been shown that the perceived value of these plays as cover is minuscule due to their low frequency.

Don and I have been hinting that we've been working on a project involving determining the relative value of individual indices. We have already done some work on 6 deck Hi-Lo games and I can tell you, without giving away any useful information whatsoever that, for a 4.5/6 S17 DAS noLS game with an optimal 1-12 Kelly spread (are you listening moraine?), these are the three least valuable plays we looked at period. 2,2 vs 8 ranks 121st out of 123 indices used, 7,7 vs 8 ranks 122nd and 3,3 vs 8 ranks 123rd.

Spending any time at all contemplating these plays is a complete waste of time (of which I am now guilty!).

#### gronbog

##### Well-Known Member
aceside said:
I found a bug on one Wizard calculator. That was a year ago, and I don't remember details.
Predictably vague.

#### KewlJ

##### Well-Known Member
gronbog said:
As usual, you are wrong.

Don is right about the non-value of these three plays from an EV perspective and I have also said it. It has also been shown that the perceived value of these plays as cover is minuscule due to their low frequency.

Don and I have been hinting that we've been working on a project involving determining the relative value of individual indices. We have already done some work on 6 deck Hi-Lo games and I can tell you, without giving away any useful information whatsoever that, for a 4.5/6 S17 DAS noLS game with an optimal 1-12 Kelly spread (are you listening moraine?), these are the three least valuable plays we looked at period. 2,2 vs 8 ranks 121st out of 123 indices used, 7,7 vs 8 ranks 122nd and 3,3 vs 8 ranks 123rd.

Spending any time at all contemplating these plays is a complete waste of time (of which I am now guilty!).
I have been wondering why both you and Don were engaging in this thread and topic to the point that you were. As a player whose primary interest and goal is to make money, I see little real world value in this discussion. This is not going to add to any profits and is just not how a player wins at today's games. I frequently talk about "chasing pennies when you should be chasing dollars", this is quite literally chasing fractions, and small fractions of a penny, in terms of real world value.

Now as an academic work by math "heavy" type guys, as you just explained was your interest (not any kind of real world value), I now understand your interest, but for the sake of those that don't, we can't repeat often enough that this type of pursuit just isn't worth a damn in regards to real play results.

#### moraine

##### Well-Known Member
Comments invited on the REAL WORLD betting pattern of an "IMBECILE" with \$30,000 bankoll:
At \$ 10 - 500 Tables
Bet \$ 10 or 15 at Hi-Lo TC 1 or below and \$500 at TC 5.
Question: how could that Imbecile possibly pull it off if the IMBECILE had a pre-set bet spread?

Last edited:

#### aceside

##### Active Member
moraine said:
Comments invited on the REAL WORLD betting pattern of an "IMBECILE" with \$30,000 bankoll:
At \$ 10 - 500 Tables
Bet \$ 10 or 15 at Hi-Lo TC 1 or below and \$500 at TC 5.
Question: how could that Imbecile possibly pull it off if the IMBECILE had a pre-set bet spread?
I know very little about Kelly and I am waiting for guys to convince me to bet Kelly, but I am very confident in my own theory of blackjack.

#### aceside

##### Active Member
gronbog said:
As usual, you are wrong.

Spending any time at all contemplating these plays is a complete waste of time (of which I am now guilty!).
You have been saying I was wrong all the way, but you seemingly agreed with what I said all the way. Frankly, I am more interested in skills involving side counts.

#### aceside

##### Active Member
21forme said:
Not sure how you can say that, Don. EVERY thread where aceside comments is the stupidest. In his 300ish posts on BJTF, and who knows how many here, he's probably never made a correct statement.
I posted about 290 on BJTF and 20 here and 10 on BJ21. Actually I am thinking about retirement from these forum. I have got the skills I need to beat the houses.

#### KewlJ

##### Well-Known Member
moraine said:
Question: how could that Imbecile possibly pull it off if the IMBECILE had a pre-set bet spread?
Please stop with the "imbecile" reference. Let's just try to have a respectful sharing of ideas, for a change.

I don't subscribe to the idea of a 'cookie cutter', pre-set bet spread. Every player situation and circumstances are different and there are a number of factors that should go into it. Now a optimal bet spread for game being played based on bankroll, easily figured by computer is a starting point, or more accurately for me, a comparison point for what I ultimately come up with for each different game and circumstance I encounter.

I will give you some examples based on my situation as a full time player with a top priority of longevity. So lets take a generic 6 deck game, standard rules (h17, Das, DoA). First thing I look at is what max bet amount will be well tolerated for that casinos and even that time of day and day of week, because it is different for different time. Let me define tolerated for my need. I am talking about, I play until the shuffle after hitting max bet (a relatively short session). So let's say I have won about 4 max bets in that short span. That is not expectation by any means. Expectation is far below that number. I am just looking for a situation where I can gage that hitting max pen and registering a small win (\$1600), is not going to cause anyone to think twice, meaning I will be welcome back to play again, even as early as tomorrow if I wanted.

So let's say I decide that max bet number is \$400 for that session at that time of day. And my bankroll supports that. So the next factor is spread. What spread will be well tolerated and not cause anyone to think twice for that session. 1-12 spread is considered reasonable for a 6 deck game. So do I go \$25-\$400 (1-16)? or do I go \$50-\$400 (1-8)? I have sort of adopted an inbetweener strategy of spreading both ways, betting \$50 off the top and dropping to \$25 during negative counts until exit trigger. This generally makes the spread look 1-8, unless that shoe first goes negative and then positive all the way to max bet. THAT is the only scenario that I show full spread within one shoe, and it really is fairly rare.

So that is my spread for that game at that situation. Next I move to a casino down the street, same basic rules, but I have determined through experience, that \$400 max bet is a little too rich for their blood. I set max bet to \$300 and refigure the whole situation. And later I come back to that first casino, but it is a busier evening or weekend shift and I have determined that I can go above that \$400 max bet and break through the \$500 threshold that is often a key threshold, maybe bet \$600 or \$800 max bet, so I have a whole new spread and max bet for that same game. And none of them measure up to what a computer is telling me is optimal spread. Of course the computer optimal number is completely void of "heat" concerns and comfort levels for each casino and situation, where as that is a major, THE major consideration for me.

So I would steer clear of that concept of "pre-set" bet spread. Try to figure out, through experience what YOU can play for each situation. That will be YOUR optimal spread and it will differ from what a computer tells you is optimal spread. It also will increase what I "loosely" call variance", more accurately normal swings. So a player with concerns over that and not willing to trade that off, probably should dismiss everything I say and go back to the cookie cutter approach.

#### moraine

##### Well-Known Member
aceside said:
I know very little about Kelly and I am waiting for guys to convince me to bet Kelly, but I am very confident in my own theory of blackjack.
When people talk up the virtue of bet spread, they mention K**** Criterion at most only as an afterthought. Not knowing K**** if fact in a NORM. May make you more popular in many forums.

#### KewlJ

##### Well-Known Member
aceside said:
I have got the skills I need to beat the houses.
The "skill" to beat the house is EASY. Can be learned from almost any blackjack book in the last 40 years. The harder part is developing the skill to continually be allowed to play and welcome back to play. THAT really is the skill of successful card counting. And You don't learn that from any book. You learn that from experience, yours and other players, sharing their experiences. At one time, that really was the beauty of these forums. Sadly today, it is something else.

#### KewlJ

##### Well-Known Member
moraine said:
When people talk up the virtue of bet spread, they mention K**** Criterion at most only as an afterthought. Not knowing K**** if fact in a NORM. May make you more popular in many forums.
To me Kelly is a guideline. Most important part is making sure you are playing to a reasonable RoR and not over-betting to the point you are 2x kelly, which guarantees Ruin. Other than that it should just be one factor. Make sure you are in that range and then move on to other important parts of spread that will guarantee or improve longevity. Because if you play by Kelly alone, with no other considerations, you are probably guaranteeing the opposite.....no longevity.

#### gronbog

##### Well-Known Member
KewlJ said:
I have been wondering why both you and Don were engaging in this thread and topic to the point that you were. As a player whose primary interest and goal is to make money, I see little real world value in this discussion.
I think we (you Don and I) are on the same page here with respect to the discussion. These plays are worth next to nothing either mathematically or strategically. Given the assertions to the contrary, and able to refute them from a theoretical angle, that's just naturally what I will do.

Another reason for the heavy engagement is to counter aceside who presents himself as an authority while posting mostly incorrect information.

#### KewlJ

##### Well-Known Member
gronbog said:
Another reason for the heavy engagement is to counter aceside who presents himself as an authority while posting mostly incorrect information.
I have to say, I am not super familiar with aceside. Little bit of exposure here, but I don't read much of BJTF these days. No reason for me to, since I am not welcome to participate in any discussions.

BUT, I completely understand the frustration with people posting incorrect and misleading information. Especially if those people are intending to be misleading. That irks me more than it should. More than I can explain why it does. It just bothers me a great deal. And lately it has been most of my existence on forums.

#### aceside

##### Active Member
gronbog said:
Another reason for the heavy engagement is to counter aceside who presents himself as an authority while posting mostly incorrect information.
Do Not counter me. I am always with you. I welcome your publication of the 123 ranked indices, and I will definitely read it carefully. Your work with variance is especially helpful for me and I hope to see more of your work!

Last edited:

#### Midwest Player

##### Well-Known Member
Is a new book in the works that will publish these 123 ranked indices? Maybe BJA4

#### LC Larry

##### Well-Known Member
KewlJ said:
I frequently talk about "chasing pennies when you should be chasing dollars", this is quite literally chasing fractions, and small fractions of a penny, in terms of real world value.
I find this hilarious coming from a mid stakes card counter. You do exactly this yourself!