FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
This is part of a P.M. exchange with a new member so I thought that I would reproduce it here:
“... when the decks are dealt very deeply, doesn't that give the players an advantage? For example, in DD, people are always talking about 65% is sooooo much better than 60% penetration. If the 6D S17 game is marginal at 0.41% house advantage, if this 6D shoe game had a penetration of 0.5 deck, wouldn't it make it a great game? Wouldn't the deep penetration change the 0.41% house advantage enough at higher counts to make it really great?“
YES, 5.5 of 6 dealt in a S17 shoe game is “great“, but you were asking about comparing a deeply cut H17 8 decker to a S17 6 decker with lesser penetration.
Lets define our terms. The House Advantage is what your “expectation” is “Off The Top” — for a flat-betting Basic Strategist who plays error-free.
What you are referencing is the players situation on a True Count basis. That remains unchanged — BUT a deeply dealt game will have a higher chance of reaching extremely high True Counts. It also has a higher chance of plunging to more extremely low True Counts.
Penetration, <shallow to deep> is a crucial factor re: Optimal Bet Spreads.
A game with GREAT rules but POOR penetration is a waste of time, while a game with POOR rules and GREAT penetration is a generally a better opportunity — as long as the player is highly skilled, has a low error ratre, experiences NO heat, and has the bankroll to spread appropriately without incurring a high “Risk Of Ruin”
One of the ways to view this is to “extrapolate to the logical extremes” — Imagine you have the choice between two shoe games. Game A has the WORST rules you can reasonably construct. H17, No Double After Split, No Ace splits, No insurance, Double on 11 only. No Re-Splits.
This game has a House Advantage of about 1.7% This game will be dealt to the virtual bottom, 98.5% (An 8 decker with one card per deck cut off and no burn card) You could beat this game, but you’d need to be able to spread “in extremis” to have a reasonable expectation of winning.
Imagine Game B. It has the BEST rules you can reasonably construct. S17, Unlimited pair-splits, including Aces, and Early Surrender vs. ten.
This game has a House Advantage of about .12%. However, it has just 6% penetration (An 8 decker with one half deck cut off) Playing SOLO this actually averages 4.8 hands. IF no 10’s, Aces, or face cards are dealt for the first 4 hands it would create a Hi-Lo True Count of + 2.6. Of course this will never happen, but it is the extreme outlier case. T.C. of +1 is possible but very unlikely.
You need to understand that the penetration AND the rules interact to create a range of desirability.
This is about a 14 to 1 ratio for House Advantage.
This is about a 16 to 1 ratio for Penetration.
These are similarly [extreme] variables.
These games I do not want to play. Do you?
In the late 1970’s BJ Pioneer, Arnold Snyder, published the tiny Blackjack Formula.
It let you compare Pen to Rules to Number of Players to instantly compare ANY two games. I have a rare (priceless) copy. But I digress.
Back to the issue at hand.
The H17 rule, Penetration depth, and the number of decks is what we are grappling with here.
The number of decks, [8 or 6], alters the House Advantage by just .03%, but the greater the number of decks the longer the player has to make his way through negative and neutral True Counts while waiting for advantageous situations, thus requiring a bigger bankroll and a deeper bet-spread.
The S17 vs. H17 issue is more straight-forward.
There is a significant difference in House Advantage.
.18% is almost crippling.
Note: We look to cancel that effect by finding it coupled with Late Surrender, as it often is in the MidWest, often with ReSplit Aces as well.
CONCLUSION: For a H17 game to be preferable to a S17 game, (especially with 8 decks), it requires MUCH better penetration, (as well as a bigger bankroll).
NOTE: I refer to bankroll (in terms of betting units). For the S17 game 1,000+ units will suffice to keep the Risk at a reasonable level. The H17 game would require 1,200+ units.
So … The key factor is the depth of penetration.
How much better need the H17 game be to be preferred ?
Without claiming mathematical precision, I suggest that If the 6 deck S17 game is 75% dealt (1.5 decks cut off), then the 8 deck H17 game with > 88% dealt (1 deck) would approach, but not exceed, parity.
This can be simulated for accuracy, but I will be a little surprised if I am far off.
“... when the decks are dealt very deeply, doesn't that give the players an advantage? For example, in DD, people are always talking about 65% is sooooo much better than 60% penetration. If the 6D S17 game is marginal at 0.41% house advantage, if this 6D shoe game had a penetration of 0.5 deck, wouldn't it make it a great game? Wouldn't the deep penetration change the 0.41% house advantage enough at higher counts to make it really great?“
YES, 5.5 of 6 dealt in a S17 shoe game is “great“, but you were asking about comparing a deeply cut H17 8 decker to a S17 6 decker with lesser penetration.
Lets define our terms. The House Advantage is what your “expectation” is “Off The Top” — for a flat-betting Basic Strategist who plays error-free.
What you are referencing is the players situation on a True Count basis. That remains unchanged — BUT a deeply dealt game will have a higher chance of reaching extremely high True Counts. It also has a higher chance of plunging to more extremely low True Counts.
Penetration, <shallow to deep> is a crucial factor re: Optimal Bet Spreads.
A game with GREAT rules but POOR penetration is a waste of time, while a game with POOR rules and GREAT penetration is a generally a better opportunity — as long as the player is highly skilled, has a low error ratre, experiences NO heat, and has the bankroll to spread appropriately without incurring a high “Risk Of Ruin”
One of the ways to view this is to “extrapolate to the logical extremes” — Imagine you have the choice between two shoe games. Game A has the WORST rules you can reasonably construct. H17, No Double After Split, No Ace splits, No insurance, Double on 11 only. No Re-Splits.
This game has a House Advantage of about 1.7% This game will be dealt to the virtual bottom, 98.5% (An 8 decker with one card per deck cut off and no burn card) You could beat this game, but you’d need to be able to spread “in extremis” to have a reasonable expectation of winning.
Imagine Game B. It has the BEST rules you can reasonably construct. S17, Unlimited pair-splits, including Aces, and Early Surrender vs. ten.
This game has a House Advantage of about .12%. However, it has just 6% penetration (An 8 decker with one half deck cut off) Playing SOLO this actually averages 4.8 hands. IF no 10’s, Aces, or face cards are dealt for the first 4 hands it would create a Hi-Lo True Count of + 2.6. Of course this will never happen, but it is the extreme outlier case. T.C. of +1 is possible but very unlikely.
You need to understand that the penetration AND the rules interact to create a range of desirability.
This is about a 14 to 1 ratio for House Advantage.
This is about a 16 to 1 ratio for Penetration.
These are similarly [extreme] variables.
These games I do not want to play. Do you?
In the late 1970’s BJ Pioneer, Arnold Snyder, published the tiny Blackjack Formula.
It let you compare Pen to Rules to Number of Players to instantly compare ANY two games. I have a rare (priceless) copy. But I digress.
Back to the issue at hand.
The H17 rule, Penetration depth, and the number of decks is what we are grappling with here.
The number of decks, [8 or 6], alters the House Advantage by just .03%, but the greater the number of decks the longer the player has to make his way through negative and neutral True Counts while waiting for advantageous situations, thus requiring a bigger bankroll and a deeper bet-spread.
The S17 vs. H17 issue is more straight-forward.
There is a significant difference in House Advantage.
.18% is almost crippling.
Note: We look to cancel that effect by finding it coupled with Late Surrender, as it often is in the MidWest, often with ReSplit Aces as well.
CONCLUSION: For a H17 game to be preferable to a S17 game, (especially with 8 decks), it requires MUCH better penetration, (as well as a bigger bankroll).
NOTE: I refer to bankroll (in terms of betting units). For the S17 game 1,000+ units will suffice to keep the Risk at a reasonable level. The H17 game would require 1,200+ units.
So … The key factor is the depth of penetration.
How much better need the H17 game be to be preferred ?
Without claiming mathematical precision, I suggest that If the 6 deck S17 game is 75% dealt (1.5 decks cut off), then the 8 deck H17 game with > 88% dealt (1 deck) would approach, but not exceed, parity.
This can be simulated for accuracy, but I will be a little surprised if I am far off.
