A slight benefit to a no-hole-card game

[London Colin]

I was reading the various threads about the Grifter's Gambit and a thought occurred to me. Assuming you intend to employ this method of playing, it seems to me that a no-hole-card game should offer a small additional advantage.

If the dealing procedure is that the dealer's second card should not be dealt if all player bets have been resolved (i.e. all player hands have been busted, or were naturals with a dealer upcard other than A or T), then the number of cards consumed when you are playing a single, heads-up hand will be slightly reduced, compared to a hole-card game, which is what you want as you are playing just one hand when you have the advantage.

When you don't have the advantage and spread to three hands, it will be very rare for all three hands to be resolved before the dealer plays. Moreover, when the dealer gets a natural, you still get the opportunity to draw cards to all three of your hands.

So it would seem that you get to consume cards slightly slower when you have the advantage, and [very] slightly faster when you don't, compared to a hole-card game.

Does the above make sense? And is it possible to quantify the benefit? I'm wondering if it would mean that even ENHC (with it's increased house edge) would still come out ahead in this particular comparison.

 

[k_c]

I was reading the various threads about the Grifter's Gambit and a thought occurred to me. Assuming you intend to employ this method of playing, it seems to me that a no-hole-card game should offer a small additional advantage.

If the dealing procedure is that the dealer's second card should not be dealt if all player bets have been resolved (i.e. all player hands have been busted, or were naturals with a dealer upcard other than A or T), then the number of cards consumed when you are playing a single, heads-up hand will be slightly reduced, compared to a hole-card game, which is what you want as you are playing just one hand when you have the advantage.

When you don't have the advantage and spread to three hands, it will be very rare for all three hands to be resolved before the dealer plays. Moreover, when the dealer gets a natural, you still get the opportunity to draw cards to all three of your hands.

So it would seem that you get to consume cards slightly slower when you have the advantage, and [very] slightly faster when you don't, compared to a hole-card game.

Does the above make sense? And is it possible to quantify the benefit? I'm wondering if it would mean that even ENHC (with it's increased house edge) would still come out ahead in this particular comparison.

Interesting observation.

In a hole-card game when the count is negative you need to be lucky enough to draw a lot of low cards to get the count into positive territory, but if dealer has blackjack you don't have the opportunity to draw any cards at all.

In a no-hole-card game if dealer has blackjack you still have the opportunity to be lucky enough to draw a lot of low cards even when dealer has blackjack.

Therefore in a no-hole-card game you will have a few more opportunities to be lucky enough to eat up a lot of low cards.

I wouldn't know how to quantify it except to consider that it may be best to wong out of a low count rather than play on in the first place.

 

[London Colin]

Interesting observation.
In a no-hole-card game if dealer has blackjack you still have the opportunity to be lucky enough to draw a lot of low cards even when dealer has blackjack.

Therefore in a no-hole-card game you will have a few more opportunities to be lucky enough to eat up a lot of low cards.

I wouldn't know how to quantify it except to consider that it may be best to wong out of a low count rather than play on in the first place.

I was thinking the other effect I mentioned would be more significant - When you are playing a single hand per round in a +ve count, and therefore want to play as many rounds as possible, every time you bust you save a card.

I gather you bust about 16% of hands. Heads-up play is approximately 5.4 cards per round, so that would mean 16 cards saved per 540 dealt, roughly 1 per 34 dealt.

Maybe we are talking about less than 1 extra, positive-count round per shoe, on average.

When playing a single hand, naturals work both for and against you - As with busting, you save a card if you get a natural (but only when the dealer does't show a T or an A); however, when the dealer is destined to get a natural you play out your hand, which I suppose means an extra .7 of a card on average.

When you switch to playing three hands, the dealer will very rarely not be required to play out their hand, compared to when you play just one, so it is only in +ve counts that we 'save' cards, and in addition we get to consume them slightly faster in -ve counts, when the dealer has a natural, as you highlighted.

It may be only of academic interest, but it is quite intriguing.

I take your point about Wonging out, but my starting point was to suppose that a player had determined to employ Grifter's Gambit, which is play-all by definition, and to pose the question "Would they be better off in a no-hole-card (even if it's ENHC) game?"

 

[UK-21]

Interesting thought and worth considering. But I think it's more theoretical than of any significant £/Euro value to an AP - how would you use this information to adjust your play? The only time I can think it would be usable was if it was in a high count towards the end of a shoe (last two decks?), the dealer was showing a 2-6 and a bundle of neutral cards came out and caused every player to bust - the +count would remain the same but the number of cards left to play would reduce, thereby possibly increasing the concentration of high cards left in the last two decks (a slightly higher concentration than if the dealer had had to take two cards which could have been 10s). If this happened on the last round before the cut card then it might be worth raising the bet slightly, although if there's only one more round to go the probability is that most (if not all) of those high cards are behind the cut card? So usual dilemma - although it might increase the EV very slightly it will also increase the variance for your play.

It's a bit like keeping an ace side count (in hi-lo) when playing a typical UK game with a 6 deck shoe. I've made a posting about this in another thread very recently. In theory (and occasionally in practice) an advantage can be obtained by doing so, but the longer term £££ value of that advantage is questionable when considering the extra counting involved and therefore the higher risk of counting errors - it would mean though that you could adjust the ENHC BS plays for 11v10, A,AvA, 8,8vA, 10vA occasionally and clawback a little of that nasty 0.11% additional edge that ENHC games have, but at a proportional increase in variance.

I should say welcome. There are a few regular contributors from the UK here, so you're not completely alone.

Newb99

 

[iCountNTrack]

I was reading the various threads about the Grifter's Gambit and a thought occurred to me. Assuming you intend to employ this method of playing, it seems to me that a no-hole-card game should offer a small additional advantage.

If the dealing procedure is that the dealer's second card should not be dealt if all player bets have been resolved (i.e. all player hands have been busted, or were naturals with a dealer upcard other than A or T), then the number of cards consumed when you are playing a single, heads-up hand will be slightly reduced, compared to a hole-card game, which is what you want as you are playing just one hand when you have the advantage.

When you don't have the advantage and spread to three hands, it will be very rare for all three hands to be resolved before the dealer plays. Moreover, when the dealer gets a natural, you still get the opportunity to draw cards to all three of your hands.

So it would seem that you get to consume cards slightly slower when you have the advantage, and [very] slightly faster when you don't, compared to a hole-card game.

Does the above make sense? And is it possible to quantify the benefit? I'm wondering if it would mean that even ENHC (with it's increased house edge) would still come out ahead in this particular comparison.

It has some appeal to it but sim results are not agreeing:

6D S17, DAS, Play-all, Hi-Low Full indices, 1-15 Spread, Heads-Up, ENHC

SCORE = 30.3

6D S17, DAS, Play-all, Hi-Low Full indices, 1-15 Spread, Heads-Up, ENHC, Split to 3 hands at negative counts (as you have suggested)

SCORE= 27.1

6D S17, DAS, Play-all, Hi-Low Full indices, 1-15 Spread, Heads-Up, Peek game

SCORE = 41.0

 

[London Colin]

Hi Newb99,

Thanks for the welcome.

Interesting thought and worth considering. But I think it's more theoretical than of any significant £/Euro value to an AP - how would you use this information to adjust your play?

I agree it may well only be of theoretical interest.

I'm not sure you've quite understood, though. There's no suggestion that you would vary your play in any way; just do what you would normally do at any given count.

As I understand it (which may well be poorly), leaving aside the camouflage aspects of the GG, it works as follows -

1. In low counts, by spliting to three hands, you consume cards more quickly, in the sense that it takes less time to play through the periods when the house has the edge. The cost of this is that you have to put more money down, and to compensate for this you need to bet bigger than you otherwise would when you do have the advantage. *
2. In high counts, by reverting to a single hand with a big bet, you now consume cards more slowly, not merely in terms of time taken to play, but in terms of cards used per round. (Playing one hand is the optimal way to go, in EV terms, when you are heads-up.)

The point I was making was that with no hole card, both of these effects ought to be slightly magnified. (And in the case of #1, it's achieved by using slightly more cards per round (on average), meaning a little less money bet when the house has the advantage.


[* Or, looking at it more sensibly, if you are happy to play at a certain level (say a $15 unit), playing normally, you need to reduce your unit to $5 if you play this way instead.]

 

[London Colin]

It has some appeal to it but sim results are not agreeing:

6D S17, DAS, Play-all, Hi-Low Full indices, 1-15 Spread, Heads-Up, ENHC

SCORE = 30.3

6D S17, DAS, Play-all, Hi-Low Full indices, 1-15 Spread, Heads-Up, ENHC, Split to 3 hands at negative counts (as you have suggested)

SCORE= 27.1

6D S17, DAS, Play-all, Hi-Low Full indices, 1-15 Spread, Heads-Up, Peek game

SCORE = 41.0

Thanks for running those.

If I've used phrases like "3 hands at negative counts", that's just me badly paraphrasing what I understood to be the nub of what the GG is all about. To get the best comparison, the bet spreads mentioned in the following article probably ought to be used: [post]37536[/post]

The comparisons which would resolve my initial question would be between -
GG, Peek
GG, No Hole Card (OBBO)
GG, ENHC

A comparison of those three would show how the hole-card affects the GG.

How GG compares to a more standard mode of playing is a separate (equally interesting) issue, and the equivalent, single-hand bet spread in the above article would hopefully show that.

[In terms of the actual sims you ran. How did you arrange the bet spread? Did you make the unit size three times as big for the single-hand sim as for the three-hand?]

 

[London Colin]

Dealing Procedures

The central assumption underlying my original post is that no further cards will be dealt to the dealer's hand if all player hands have been resolved; the dealer's single card will just be scooped up and placed in the discards.

Is this universally the case? In a couple of online casinos I've actually spotted a second card being dealt, or even the entire hand being pointlessly played out.

 

[DownUnderWonder]

The central assumption underlying my original post is that no further cards will be dealt to the dealer's hand if all player hands have been resolved; the dealer's single card will just be scooped up and placed in the discards.

Is this universally the case? In a couple of online casinos I've actually spotted a second card being dealt, or even the entire hand being pointlessly played out.

In ENHC games the procedure is if all player hands bust then the dealers single card goes into the discard tray. The only exception to this is if the dealer has an ace and there is an insurance wager, then a second card will be dealt.

If the only non-busted hands of players are naturals and the dealer has an ace or ten, one additional card only will be dealt to the dealers hand.

 

[London Colin]

In ENHC games the procedure is if all player hands bust then the dealers single card goes into the discard tray. The only exception to this is if the dealer has an ace and there is an insurance wager, then a second card will be dealt.

If the only non-busted hands of players are naturals and the dealer has an ace or ten, one additional card only will be dealt to the dealers hand.

That's certainly the logical way to do it. I was really just enquiring if anyone has come across a land-based casino that defies this logic (as some online casinos do).

Obviously it's pretty irrelevant for online casinos that shuffle after every round anyway; although it will slow the game down, which won't help people who are ploughing through a wagering requirement to release a bonus.