A,8/8 v 5/6
- Thread starter politcat
- Start date
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
6 decks/S17.politcat said:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
That's from Blackjack School Lesson 15. The link is on the margin on the left.
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't think that Ken would link to the site if the info wasn't accurate. So what info are you using and what makes you think your info is more accurate? I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to find out who has the best information.Thunder said:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackjack-school/blackjack-lesson-14.phpThunder said:
Here are the numbers you'll need to learn. These may vary a bit from numbers you'll see published in books like Stanford Wong's "Professional Blackjack" because the ones I use are specifically for a six-deck game where the dealer stands on A-6 and a few have been modified based upon the theory of 'risk averse' play which was developed about 15 years ago. These numbers work well; they have been proven in thousands of hours of actual casino play by me and my students. Do NOT use them for single-deck games, however. Single-deck play requires different numbers and will be covered in a future lesson.
Apparently Wong's info is outdated.
zengrifter
Banned
All of them. zgpolitcat said:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
So which is better, aggressive or risk averse? This is the info Ken has linked to. I don't see any info on Wong's indices.Thunder said:
kewljason
Well-Known Member
It really just doesn't matter that much if your indices are off a hair. Truce, floor? doesn't matter. Example A8 vs 6. If you double at TC of +2 rather than TC of +1, it costs 2 cents per $100 wagered. Lets say you play 500 hours a year at the 6 decks game (which is what was mentioned earlier). Thats about 30,000 hands. A8 vs 6 will occur 28 times in that span (92 per 100,000 hands) of those 28 times, 11 percent will occur at a TC of +1. For rounding off purposes that is 3 hands. So 3 times a year you will lose 2 cents per $100 wager. So if your unit wager is $100 it will cost you 6 cents per year to double at tc of +2 rather than +1.21gunsalute said:
Now if you are not doubling by the higher true counts of +4 or +5, when you have many units out, yes then it is costing you more money. But for the most part being off by 1 isn't costing much.Now other plays like doubling 8 vs 6 will occur at a rate of almost double the above example, but it is still a matter of a few cents.
As long as you get the most important indices of insurance, stand 16 vs 10, stand 15 vs 10 correct, it really is of little importance if you are off by 1 on the others. Especially if you are off to the conservative end.
I am ammending this because I forgot to add that of course precise indices become more important when playing single and even double deck games.
Last edited:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
So basically, most of the indices are 6 to one, half dozen to the other crap shoots that don't matter much which way you play them, right? I mean, no matter what the count, whether you stand on 16 or hit 16 against a 10 you're probably screwed one way or the other. It's just that in positive counts it's very, very marginally better statistically to stand rather than hit, right?kewljason said:It really just doesn't matter that much if your indices are off a hair. Truce, floor? doesn't matter. Example A8 vs 6. If you double at TC of +2 rather than TC of +1, it costs 2 cents per $100 wagered. Lets say you play 500 hours a year at the 6 decks game (which is what was mentioned earlier). Thats about 30,000 hands. A8 vs 6 will occur 28 times in that span (92 per 100,000 hands) of those 28 times, 11 percent will occur at a TC of +1. For rounding off purposes that is 3 hands. So 3 times a year you will lose 2 cents per $100 wager. So if your unit wager is $100 it will cost you 6 cents per year to double at tc of +2 rather than +1.
Now other plays like doubling 8 vs 6 will occur at a rate of almost double the above example, but it is still a matter of a few cents.
As long as you get the most important indices of insurance, stand 16 vs 10, stand 15 vs 10 correct, it really is of little importance if you are off by 1 on the others. Especially if you are off to the conservative end.
I am ammending this because I forgot to add that of course precise indices become more important when playing single and even double deck games.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
Well no. Not exactly. I am saying if you play an index that is off by a hair (count of 1) from the optimal departure point, the difference is minimal. Again with my previous example, if you are still not doubling A8 vs 6 at higher counts, like +3, +5 ect, then the difference becomes greater.21gunsalute said:
Your example of 16 vs 10 is also a very bad example because that hand occurs at such a great frequency (3530 times per 100,000 hands as opposed to 92 per 100,00 hands for A8 vs 6). That is why I stated just be correct on the three most important plays of insurance, 16 vs 10, 15 vs 10. In addition it is best to be precise on splitting 10's vs 5 and 6 as well, which are the next two, importance-wise, because they happen fairly frequently (727 times per 100,000 hands) and when you do make the departure from BS, you will have a max bet out, so the cost of not being precise increases. (that is, if you make this play at all)
But for most other departure points, the cost of being off by a TC of 1 is minimal, especially soft double down hands which happen most infrequently.
Last edited:
21gunsalute
Well-Known Member
3530 times per 100,000 hands? Is that all? I could swear I get that hand 3530 times in each session. My point is you're not going to win that hand very often whether you hit or stand, and since I've been counting cards it seems that even though I play it "correctly" it always seems like I should have done the opposite. For instance, I got that hand twice in a row near the end of a shoe with a very high count a week ago and stood...only to see a 5 come up as the next card each time. But I digress.kewljason said:
kewljason
Well-Known Member
Well that is just selective memory. Naturally you remember the hands that go bad more often, but yes you are correct, 16 vs 10 is a loser. A big loser! Thats why, if available you are willing to surrender and immediately give up 50%. If giving up 50% is the best play, that tells you how big a losing hand this is. But because it occurs so frequently, you really need to make the best optimal play. Those few cents penalty can add up when you are talking about a hand that occurs so frequently. That is why it is most important to play the "big three" correctly.21gunsalute said: