Mayor, nice message board. Enjoyed reading the Golden Gate a while back and have been lurking here for a while.
I have a Red 7 question to the group, I know from CCC that ZG is a R7 advocate for casual players and may have the answer I'm looking for.
In the Advanced R7 index table that Snyder has on pg. 48 (1998) of Blackbelt in BJ. I'm a little confused on a few of the index numbers he has included for the shoe games. In particular he has RC of 4 as the number to take insurance, to stand on 12 vs 2 and also the point to double down on 10 vs 10.
I realize that these are the numbers he says to follow in the second half of the shoe, but it would seem to me that they would be the same or possibly even lower than the RC number of 2 that he introduces in the beginning of the Red 7 chapter for these same plays.
My logic is that as you get deeper into the shoe, you maintain the same 10/non10 ratio at the same running count, but you have less non10 cards (also less 10 cards). So would this not give you a better chance to catch a 10 (or be under the dealers Ace) due to the smaller number of cards as you get deeper into the shoe and thus a smaller number of occurrences "allowed" in one standard deviation associated with it?
What part of my logic is flawed?
Thanks in advance to all,
Pill
I have a Red 7 question to the group, I know from CCC that ZG is a R7 advocate for casual players and may have the answer I'm looking for.
In the Advanced R7 index table that Snyder has on pg. 48 (1998) of Blackbelt in BJ. I'm a little confused on a few of the index numbers he has included for the shoe games. In particular he has RC of 4 as the number to take insurance, to stand on 12 vs 2 and also the point to double down on 10 vs 10.
I realize that these are the numbers he says to follow in the second half of the shoe, but it would seem to me that they would be the same or possibly even lower than the RC number of 2 that he introduces in the beginning of the Red 7 chapter for these same plays.
My logic is that as you get deeper into the shoe, you maintain the same 10/non10 ratio at the same running count, but you have less non10 cards (also less 10 cards). So would this not give you a better chance to catch a 10 (or be under the dealers Ace) due to the smaller number of cards as you get deeper into the shoe and thus a smaller number of occurrences "allowed" in one standard deviation associated with it?
What part of my logic is flawed?
Thanks in advance to all,
Pill