A6 vs 2 RA play?

FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
Unlike A7 vs. 2, A6 vs. 2 is sensitive to Risk Aversion.

I am not a Hi-Lo player, but I strongly suspect that +2 will suffice for doubling.
 
D

duanedibley

Well-Known Member
OK, while we're on the subject of risk-averse indexes, how about 99 vs A? DAS Allowed.

I have +3 as the expectation-maximization index.
 
Last edited:
UK-21

UK-21

Well-Known Member
FLASH1296 said:
Unlike A7 vs. 2, A6 vs. 2 is sensitive to Risk Aversion.

I am not a Hi-Lo player, but I strongly suspect that +2 will suffice for doubling.
Click to expand...
I agree with FLASH - this one could lose you a lot of money, even if it is a marginally +EV play. If the dealer pulls one of the unknown 7s, 8s or 9s, and then a 10/picture (and you know the deck is rich in these) you're in trouble. If you pull a 7,8 or 9 and then a 10 you're toast. If you play this hand a couple of million times then I'm sure you'll be in front, but how often will it come up at +2 or higher? I think the 789 factor in the hi-lo count leaves it as one of those that should be avoided if you're pursuing a reduced risk strategy.

This play isn't in the I18, so it's safe to assume it's return isn't that great. Personally I'd give it a miss. Just my two bob's worth.
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
" ... risk-averse indexes, how about 99 vs A? DAS Allowed."

Again, (I am not a Hi-Lo player), but with ZEN the R.A. Index is +5, suggesting that Hi-Lo would be about +3.5

If I had to choose a Hi-Lo Index I would select +4

While this split doubles the amount of money in play, that does not mean that it is sensitive to Risk Aversion considerations.

Incidentally, this is my favorite play.

I enjoy the bug-eyed reactions it generates.
 
Last edited:
UK-21

UK-21

Well-Known Member
Mr Wong's book states TC+3. Not one that I have in my repotoire, as if all the tens show up at that point you lose twice over. Even where I play, anyone making that move who hadn't made lots of stupid plays earlier might as well wear a t-shirt with cardcounter emblazened on it. It's got to be worse than splitting tens?
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
Listen and Learn

  • 1. Wong did NOT generate Risk Averse indices. His are expectation-maximizing.
  • 2. This split appears to be a "Desperado" move, not a Card Counter's move.
 
UK-21

UK-21

Well-Known Member
FLASH1296 said:
2. This split appears to be a "Desperado" move, not a Card Counter's move.
Click to expand...
You'd better hope you don't come across a dealer who can count as s/he deals - you may find they don't see it quite that way. How many times have you made this play?
 
T

tripsix

Well-Known Member
RA index numbers

duanedibley said:
Hi,

Is there a HiLo risk-averse index for doubling A6 vs 2? Or do we always hit? My game is 6D S17.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I have the A7 vs 2 RA index as +2. It follows that the RA index your looking for is not the same. Consider the following points and you'll see it is probably not worth it.

1) 17 is mostly a losing hand, it is just less costly than to hit it. At higher counts you are more likely to recieve a 10. Assuming you do get a ten then you are betting that the dealer will recieve 2 more tens in a row. That would have to be an extremely high count to make this bet.

2) using a reverse hilo index would be worthless as the dealer would have 5 advantageous cards and you'd only have 3.

Bottom line not worth a double, IMHO

splitting 9,9 vs A is a pretty courageous or foolhardy act. Flash may be able to afford it. Realize the only holecard the dealer may have that would make this worth it is a 7. Otherwise the dealer gets a new hand. The difference in count systems may rear it's ugly head by estimating a hi-lo index for this play. Not worth it unless you know the dealer's holecard is a 7.
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
"splitting 9,9 vs A is a pretty courageous or foolhardy act. Flash may be able to afford it. Realize the only holecard the dealer may have that would make this worth it is a 7. Otherwise the dealer gets a new hand. The difference in count systems may rear it's ugly head by estimating a hi-lo index for this play. Not worth it unless you know the dealer's holecard is a 7."

See page 453 of our bible -- Blackjack Attack, 3rd ed.

At a Zero True Count the player's disadvantage is moderate:

Standing the e.v. is -0.17 and Splitting the e.v. is -.29

That difference disappears at higher True Counts because we already know the dealer does not have a Face card in the hole.

If she has an 8 or a 9 we are cooked, but with the other cards we are favored, (presuming that we can double our 11's and the game is S17)

Also, remember that it is easy to win one and lose the other for a de facto push, which outperforms standing on your hard 18 vs. a dealer Ace.


 
UK-21

UK-21

Well-Known Member
That explains the basis - but in the UK there is no hole card, so the possibility of the dealer pulling a ten to go with their initial ace, especially at TC+5, makes this (for me at least) one to avoid.
 
FLASH1296

FLASH1296

Well-Known Member
duanediubley,

Your sarcasm not withstanding, take note that in some venues, e.g. Atlantic City, you are actually forbidden to double on a two card card 21.
 
T

tripsix

Well-Known Member
A partial correction.

I was partially wrong. The indices I originally learned, so ingrained, sometimes seem a bit heavily RA. Learned them at (Dead link: http://www.gamemasteronline.com)
A,7 vs 2 = D @ TC2
A,6 vs 2 = hit
Great questions DuaneD. Flash gave me pause to think after I had slept. Anyway, here are the EV maximizing indexes found.
A,7 vs 2 = D @ TC0
A,6 vs 2 = D @ TC1
9,9 vs A = P @ TC3
conclusion:
A,7 vs 2 => TC1 or TC2 may be difference between flooring & rounding.

A,6 vs 2 => TC2 may be okay, but it may be higher.

9,9 vs A => P @ TC4 may be okay if your act is good enough to appear as a 'Desparado.'

I found the EV's ['off the top' (TC=0 is not the same)] are smaller than FLASH posted. I found the folowing on pg 443:
Standing the e.v. is -0.09 and Splitting the e.v. is -0.12. Therefore at TC+4 ...
This lends credence to FLASH'S argument. Thank's FLASH, I may have to use this sometimes!
 
K

kingjaxe

Member
Risk Averse indexes Hi Lo

Hi guys

Beginner from eastern Europe here. Shame to say but I've played blackjack for 3 months with quite good results using only 16 vs 10 index and insurance. Now I've read all gamemaster's lessons from blackjack school and some topics on this forum and I'm really lost. I thought that gamemaster's indices are good but then saw that QFIT didn't recommend them.

Where can i find correct RA indexes for Hi Lo method, 6 decks, S17 , DA2, DAS allowed, early surrender ( not against ace) , no peak. Can someone post them here ?? I will be very thankful for help.

Cheers
kingjaxe
 
Y

ycming

Well-Known Member
UK-21 said:
Mr Wong's book states TC+3. Not one that I have in my repotoire, as if all the tens show up at that point you lose twice over. Even where I play, anyone making that move who hadn't made lots of stupid plays earlier might as well wear a t-shirt with cardcounter emblazened on it. It's got to be worse than splitting tens?
Click to expand...
99v A we would never make that play in the UK. Wong book is not ENHC :).

Ming
 
Y

ycming

Well-Known Member
kingjaxe said:
Hi guys

Beginner from eastern Europe here. Shame to say but I've played blackjack for 3 months with quite good results using only 16 vs 10 index and insurance. Now I've read all gamemaster's lessons from blackjack school and some topics on this forum and I'm really lost. I thought that gamemaster's indices are good but then saw that QFIT didn't recommend them.

Where can i find correct RA indexes for Hi Lo method, 6 decks, S17 , DA2, DAS allowed, early surrender ( not against ace) , no peak. Can someone post them here ?? I will be very thankful for help.

Cheers
kingjaxe
Click to expand...
Think you are looking for expectation max indicies and not RA like it is discussed in this topic. Get wong's book.

Ming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top