Eating the babies

[Dopple]

No, its not what you think.

In effect would the indices be somewhat skewed in the case of a DD deck for example but all to some extent for this condition:

You have a hit/stand index number but you want to eat extra cards to finish the deck in a negative situation right. That should in factor into the decision and make that raw hit/stand number not totally correct because it is to your advantgage if by taking x more cards you will see one less hand with a negative EV.

In my town I can almost just sit out the last hand if I want and not even get much heat over it but do you see my logic. In boarderline situations negative you take and positive you refrain from taking that card as it may cost you a round.

 

[winr_winr_chicken_dinner!]

Huh?

Dopple, you mean you want to take more cards with a minimum bet to get the deck to a positive count so you can bet big again? Ok, card eating I can understand, but am I missing something? I usually am... A little help on this one please?

 

[Dopple]

No, to get the deck over. The high rollers will be home soon and watch, I bet they see me logic.

 

[StandardDeviant]

No, to get the deck over. The high rollers will be home soon and watch, I bet they see me logic.

So in borderline negative EV situations, you want to increase the probability that you will lose the hand by taking a hit when you should stand in order to get the shoe over with? Seems like a losing strategy to me. :bomb:

Why not just sit out that last hand by taking a phone call or heading to the restroom if you don't want to play?

Actually, in borderline situations, why not just play? The odds are, after all borderline. If the count is highly negative, wong out.

 

[Dopple]

You cant sit out every neg DD and these are cases where you are not sure if is hit or stand because it is so close.

 

[winr_winr_chicken_dinner!]

??

No, to get the deck over. The high rollers will be home soon and watch, I bet they see me logic.

That's still card eating, whether you do it to get through a negative section of a shoe or get rid of the remainder of the shoe, it doesn't matter. Me, I'd just get up and take a break. Can't do that? Find a better game...

 

[ExhibitCAA]

dopple, I fully agree with you. This issue was discussed in another thread somewhere, but not much progress. The same effect would work in the other direction, too. For example, in a positive count, where we would like to get an extra round, possibly we would be more likely to double 9v7 (for instance) or stand on TTv6 (I would stand on this hand anyway), as doubling and standing use fewer cards. Surrender also uses fewer cards, so a surrender like 14vT becomes slightly more attractive. The problem is that most index generators are not set up to calculate "realistic" indices with a shuffle card and without any shortcuts. And, the effect you are looking for would be small, and might not change any index on the entire chart.

 

[moo321]

or stand on TTv6 (I would stand on this hand anyway)

Do you not split tens because of the heat? Or the card-eating effect? And does TC factor in your decision?

 

[Deathclutch]

Do you not split tens because of the heat? Or the card-eating effect? And does TC factor in your decision?

I believe he was saying that he doesn't split for a couple reasons. One being not eating more cards at a high count for a small gain coupled with the added heat. If I read correctly he'd rather take less heat and eat up less cards during the high count making high heat moves.