Hitting a 4th card...
- Thread starter smithj
- Start date
Thank you as always.Sonny said:
Not sure if I understood your point... but yes I definitely count and use index playssabre said:
, however, I don't know/use all of them... just the ones that I (in my opinion) consider most important. My question was more related to the high probability of busting by requesting a 4th card during a high TC (specially if I reached 16, based on the scenario described above).
aslan
Well-Known Member
I have had many a 4 and 5 and sometimes even 6 or 7 card hand 21 or under, but I cannot remember ever hitting a 16 with a fifth card and not busting. As for hitting a 16 with a fourth card, my record is dismal, as I'm sure yours is too, but I keep doing it unless there's a high count. I think maybe I should stop hitting 16 with a fifth card, however...what do you think?
...of course I was just kidding, I am totally sure that you've got more (tons of) experience than me... well according to Sonny if it is a 16 v 8 and the TC is >= +8, that would be a stand... I have already added that index to my list by the way...aslan said:If I knew the index play, I wouldn't ask the question.
aslan
Well-Known Member
They are the same if the undealt cards in both cases contain the same proportion of the other bust cards (6s, 7s, 8s, & 9s).sabre said:
My question is, however, in hitting a multi-card hand, isn't the likelihood of 5 low cards in a row for a seven card hand less that the likelihood of 2 low cards in a row for a four card hand? I suspect that an even distribution of high and low cards is more likely than the clumping of high and low cards, although we have all seen that happen. In a neutral count, doesn't a ten comes up about every two and a half cards? If that is the case, then in a neutral count, it would seem more likely to successfully hit a two card 16 than a six card 16, if the previous hits (2 and 4, respectively) have all been low cards. Voodoo thinking?
Last edited:
duanedibley
Well-Known Member
This is not relevant. When you are looking at a 16, you are only interested in the likelihood of the next card, which you can estimate based on the count. The previous five cards will not affect the likelihood of the next card any more than they contribute to the total count so far.aslan said:
If you decided to ask (before the hand was dealt) "Is it more likely that I will get a 2-card 16 than a 5-card 16 next hand" then the answer would be yes, but this is of course not very useful.
SleightOfHand
Well-Known Member
I am unsure, but if I were to guess, I would agree that the index should be slightly lower for hand totals of 16 with more than 3 cards, although for completely different reasons, as yours is voodooaslan said:
The index for 16vX, from what I understand, is created using different combinations of 16 (including 2+ cards) and then evaluating the EV of hitting/standing.The difference is that 16s with 3+ cards are much more likely to contain small cards as Aslan has said. However, the difference is that instead of considering streaks, we consider composition. The deck itself has fewer cards that improve our hand compared to a deck where we were given a 2 card 16. This means that we should be more inclined on standing, at least when the TC is = to the index. However, if the TC is something like -.2, is that TC enough to deem a stand? I would hit, as I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if such were the case.
The same could be said for any multicard hand total v any card for their appropriate indexes (perhaps except for dealer aces, as they are stronger with lots of small cards after checking for BJ).
Last edited:
aslan
Well-Known Member
I knew I was voodoo. The devil made me do it! :laugh:SleightOfHand said:I am unsure, but if I were to guess, I would agree that the index should be slightly lower for hand totals of 16 with more than 3 cards, although for completely different reasons, as yours is voodoo
The difference is that 16s with 3+ cards are much more likely to contain small cards as Aslan has said. However, the difference is that instead of considering streaks, we consider composition. The deck itself has fewer cards that improve our hand compared to a deck where we were given a 2 card 16. This means that we should be more inclined on standing, at least when the TC is = to the index. However, if the TC is something like -.2, is that TC enough to deem a stand? I would hit, as I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if such were the case.
The same could be said for any multicard hand total v any card for their appropriate indexes (perhaps except for dealer aces, as they are stronger with lots of small cards after checking for BJ).
I'm practicing for my new book which is in progress, "Beating Blackjack Without Basic Strategy or Counting." :laugh::whip:
Last edited:
I'm still learning, so pardon me if this is a noob question, but doesn't the TC take into account composition dependent strategy for shoe games? IOW, you don't need composition dependent strategy because the TC tells you the approximate composition of the remaining shoe.SleightOfHand said:I am unsure, but if I were to guess, I would agree that the index should be slightly lower for hand totals of 16 with more than 3 cards, although for completely different reasons, as yours is voodoo
The difference is that 16s with 3+ cards are much more likely to contain small cards as Aslan has said. However, the difference is that instead of considering streaks, we consider composition. The deck itself has fewer cards that improve our hand compared to a deck where we were given a 2 card 16. This means that we should be more inclined on standing, at least when the TC is = to the index. However, if the TC is something like -.2, is that TC enough to deem a stand? I would hit, as I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be too surprised if such were the case.
The same could be said for any multicard hand total v any card for their appropriate indexes (perhaps except for dealer aces, as they are stronger with lots of small cards after checking for BJ).