I have a question about the Dr. Pepper Rule. In Blackjack Bluebook II it says to hit when you have 10-2 v. the dealer's 4. In an article ,"Basic Strategy Blackjack has its Exceptions", it says the rule applies only to S-17 games. Which is correct? Both the book and article were written by Mr. Renzey, so I'm hoping that he'll be able to reply. Thank you.
Dr. Pepper Rule: Mr. Renzey?
- Thread starter Caesar
- Start date
According to the Wizard of Odds, for a single deck game,it's correct to hit T2 vs. a 4 whether or NOT the dealer stands on S17.
For DOUBLE deck, it's correct to hit when the dealer stands on S17, and STAND when the dealer HITS S17. This may be what Renzey is talking about.
For anything more than 2 decks, it's correct BS to always stand.
Incidentally, MY simulator agrees with the Wizard 100%.
For DOUBLE deck, it's correct to hit when the dealer stands on S17, and STAND when the dealer HITS S17. This may be what Renzey is talking about.
For anything more than 2 decks, it's correct BS to always stand.
Incidentally, MY simulator agrees with the Wizard 100%.
I just looked at the book and it clearly states that hitting T2 v. 4 is correct except in eight deck games.
I have NEVER found an error in any of Peter Griffin's writings. And I have ALMOST never found an error on the Wizard's site. So I decided to run sims of ten million hands each way, using 1 deck, 2 decks, 4 decks, 6 decks, & 8 decks.
My simulator agrees with Griffin if the dealer stands on soft 17, but for H17 it agrees with the Wiz.
So who's right & who's wrong? I don't know, but one conclusion I've gained from this: A player's T2 vs dealer's 4 has got to be about the closest play possible in blackjack. You could play BS blackjack for your whole life & the difference in equity would probably be less than one dollar after 50 years.
My simulator agrees with Griffin if the dealer stands on soft 17, but for H17 it agrees with the Wiz.
So who's right & who's wrong? I don't know, but one conclusion I've gained from this: A player's T2 vs dealer's 4 has got to be about the closest play possible in blackjack. You could play BS blackjack for your whole life & the difference in equity would probably be less than one dollar after 50 years.
** 10-2 versus 4 **
S17 hit < 8 decks, stand >= 8 decks
H17 hit < 3 decks, stand >= 3 decks
UK-21
Well-Known Member
Borderline stuff really? So borderline that Mr R suggests hitting 10,2 v 4, but keeping to BS and standing on 9,3 v 4 or 8,4,v 4 - the probabilities balance on the fact that there is one additional ten card in the shoe and one less small card and 8 or 9 (which if drawn will turn a 12 into a probable winner) between the different hand compositions. As it's nearly all 6 deck in the UK I haven't looked at the effect of hitting / not hitting on single and double deck games.
Assuming OTT of a new shoe and just one player, if one hits a total of 12 there's virtually 4 chances in 13 of busting but 9 chances in 13 of improving the hand or it remaining a stiff - no brainer really. When I started playing I was surprised that BS dictated standing on a 12 against a 4,5,6, but I now appreciate that this is due to the fact that with a dealer 4 and up there's a greater probability of winning by the dealer busting out than through drawing an advantageous card if hitting. The 10,2 v 4 hand is the borderline bit.
A bit like when do you stand on a 12 v 2 if counting cards? HiLo +3 or +4 true? And of course the cards that will turn a 12 into a winner or probable winner aren't counted at all . . .
Assuming OTT of a new shoe and just one player, if one hits a total of 12 there's virtually 4 chances in 13 of busting but 9 chances in 13 of improving the hand or it remaining a stiff - no brainer really. When I started playing I was surprised that BS dictated standing on a 12 against a 4,5,6, but I now appreciate that this is due to the fact that with a dealer 4 and up there's a greater probability of winning by the dealer busting out than through drawing an advantageous card if hitting. The 10,2 v 4 hand is the borderline bit.
A bit like when do you stand on a 12 v 2 if counting cards? HiLo +3 or +4 true? And of course the cards that will turn a 12 into a winner or probable winner aren't counted at all . . .
Exactly. Discussion like this might satisfy some intellectual curiosity, but don't have much practical application.
Big rocks vs little rocks. This one's barely a grain of sand.
thanks for the replies
Yes, the difference is extremely small, I know. But I am a basic strategy player and Mr. Renzey suggests two composition-dependent plays. One is standing on a multicard 16 when it contains a 4 or 5. The other is hitting 10-2 when the dealer shows a 4. There is a discrepancy between the information in the article and the book for this second one.
I just plays for comps when there is a promotion, but I want to play exactly right.
Yes, the difference is extremely small, I know. But I am a basic strategy player and Mr. Renzey suggests two composition-dependent plays. One is standing on a multicard 16 when it contains a 4 or 5. The other is hitting 10-2 when the dealer shows a 4. There is a discrepancy between the information in the article and the book for this second one.
I just plays for comps when there is a promotion, but I want to play exactly right.
Yes, the difference is extremely small, I know. But I am a basic strategy player and I just plays for comps when there is a promotion. I want to play exactly right.
When Bluebook II was written in 2003, most shoe games were S17. So for 10/2 vs. 4, I differentiated only between 8 decks and less than 8 decks --since it's correct to hit it in any pitch game and to stand in any 8 deck game. It's true that if the shoe game is H17, it's also correct to stand in 4 and 6 deck play with your 10/2 vs. 4, and that was considered in the article you mentioned written in 2008.
I believe KC broke them all down accurately in his post a few messages back in this thread. Bear in mind that these are all very close decisions except for single deck, where it is a clearcut hit regardless of the rules. In most other games, you have just a couple tenths percent better chance to win the hand if you play it right rather than wrong.
The most complete figures I have seen on this question and other hand EV's is in the fine print charts of Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack III.
Last edited:
Thank you Mr. Renzey
Thanks for the answer and for your books and articles.
Game conditions have indeed been getting worse for almost a decade now or so.
But I understand the new casinos in Penn. will have S17 and surrender. That's great news for blackjack players. Maybe there will be a new trend in the other direction.
Thanks for the answer and for your books and articles.
Game conditions have indeed been getting worse for almost a decade now or so.
But I understand the new casinos in Penn. will have S17 and surrender. That's great news for blackjack players. Maybe there will be a new trend in the other direction.
zengrifter
Banned
I ALWAYS hit ANY 12 v 4 with ANY# decks at +1 or less. (Unless I get a vibe) But that is just me.
At neutral-zero count most BS is WRONG... but I am not qualified to explain why. zg
At neutral-zero count most BS is WRONG... but I am not qualified to explain why. zg
Last edited:
Do you really think that most of B.S. is wrong? As I understand it, the reason it's wrong sometimes is that for example the count could be neutral after 20 5's, 20 X's, and 21 9's, and 19 8's have come out, which means that it's very different from a fresh shoe. Yet, I'm not sure that most is wrong later in the shoe; is there a source you got that info from?