ES10 and ESA

#1
Hello everyone,

I found a game with Early surrender against ace and they let me take insurance before I surrender my Hands which is more than great.
Game is ENHC, S17, DOA, DAS, ES10 ESA, RS4, NO RSA 6 DECK, pen 1.5/6.
I use Hi Lo with Ill18 and fab4
I included all parameters in CVCX and it gives me only 0,03% edge (-0,03HE) at rc0.
Shouldn't this worth more because I can take insurance VS A at max bet and than early surrender both boxes VS A?
 

DSchles

Well-Known Member
#4
Rob Bin said:
Hello everyone,

I found a game with Early surrender against ace and they let me take insurance before I surrender my Hands which is more than great.
Game is ENHC, S17, DOA, DAS, ES10 ESA, RS4, NO RSA 6 DECK, pen 1.5/6.
I use Hi Lo with Ill18 and fab4
I included all parameters in CVCX and it gives me only 0,03% edge (-0,03HE) at rc0.
Shouldn't this worth more because I can take insurance VS A at max bet and than early surrender both boxes VS A?
If ENHC means that you lose all doubles and splits to an eventual dealer natural, then the BS player edge for this game is 0.116%. So it is not possible that the edge at TC = 0 is only 0.03%, given that, at that count standing on 16 vs. 10 kicks in and adds a little to the BS edge. You can look at all the Chapter X charts to see that the Hi-Lo edges at TC = 0 are always slightly better than the BS edge for that particular set of rules. So, I would guess that the edge at TC = 0 for your game is more of the order of 0.20% and not just 0.03%. Check all your parameters.

If this is true ENHC, I'd be interested in the procedure at the table when you take insurance and then wind up surrendering. Do they put a lammer on your original bet, since when you surrender, the bet is no longer there, and yet they can't resolve the insurance bet until after the hand is over and the dealer takes his second card. This used to be exactly the situation in early A.C., when they offered both ES and, of course, insurance.

One more thing: as this is now ES and not LS, to which the Fab 4 applies, you might want to consider learning a few more ES indices.

Don
 
#6
DSchles said:
If ENHC means that you lose all doubles and splits to an eventual dealer natural, then the BS player edge for this game is 0.116%. So it is not possible that the edge at TC = 0 is only 0.03%, given that, at that count standing on 16 vs. 10 kicks in and adds a little to the BS edge. You can look at all the Chapter X charts to see that the Hi-Lo edges at TC = 0 are always slightly better than the BS edge for that particular set of rules. So, I would guess that the edge at TC = 0 for your game is more of the order of 0.20% and not just 0.03%. Check all your parameters.

If this is true ENHC, I'd be interested in the procedure at the table when you take insurance and then wind up surrendering. Do they put a lammer on your original bet, since when you surrender, the bet is no longer there, and yet they can't resolve the insurance bet until after the hand is over and the dealer takes his second card. This used to be exactly the situation in early A.C., when they offered both ES and, of course, insurance.

One more thing: as this is now ES and not LS, to which the Fab 4 applies, you might want to consider learning a few more ES indices.

Don
Thanks for your advice.
I will check all CVCX parameters and screenshot them if it still shows 0,03% edge.
You lose splits and doubles against dealer natural. It is true ENHC.
Procedure is as following:
I have 1st hand with bet 100, 2nd hand with bet 100 and dealer has an A. First they ask me for insurance. I must mention they are all new dealers with little experience. I put 100 in insurance and than I tell surrender both (If it is according to ES A strategy - surrender every hard hand VS A except hard total 8,9,10,11 and 18 or more and don't surrender soft hands).
Then they return me 100 back and there are no cards on the layout except Dealer's A. Than additional card is drawn and if it is blackjack dealer pays you 2 to 1 insurance (you get 200 and 100 you bet at insurance so it is 100 AV+).
Sry, I wasn't precise but I defined playing strategy at CVCX for ES A and it is written above. I found it at wizard of odds site. (surr every hard hand VS A except 8, 9, 10, 11, 18 and above).
 

DSchles

Well-Known Member
#7
Rob Bin said:
Thanks for your advice.
I will check all CVCX parameters and screenshot them if it still shows 0,03% edge.
You lose splits and doubles against dealer natural. It is true ENHC.
Procedure is as following:
I have 1st hand with bet 100, 2nd hand with bet 100 and dealer has an A. First they ask me for insurance. I must mention they are all new dealers with little experience. I put 100 in insurance and than I tell surrender both (If it is according to ES A strategy - surrender every hard hand VS A except hard total 8,9,10,11 and 18 or more and don't surrender soft hands).
Then they return me 100 back and there are no cards on the layout except Dealer's A. Than additional card is drawn and if it is blackjack dealer pays you 2 to 1 insurance (you get 200 and 100 you bet at insurance so it is 100 AV+).
Sry, I wasn't precise but I defined playing strategy at CVCX for ES A and it is written above. I found it at wizard of odds site. (surr every hard hand VS A except 8, 9, 10, 11, 18 and above).
What about the early surrenders vs. 10?

Don
 
#9
DSchles said:
What about the early surrenders vs. 10?

Don
Sorry for late response.
I corrected index numbers I had inputted wrong in my playing strategy. Now everything is fine, I have 0,15% edge off the top.
ES 10 playing indexes I inputted were - Always surrender hard 14,15 and 16 vs 10, surr 17 vs 10 at tc5+ and surr 13 vs 10 at tc3+.
Thanks for pointing me about where I made a mistake.
capture-png.9133
 
#10
gronbog said:
Right, but you listed insurance as a reason why the RC=0 advantage should be higher than 0.03%.
I was wrong , insurance wasn't reason why RC advantage should be higher than 0.03%.
I didn't change surrender playing strategy completely according to this rule, so that was the reason.
 
Top