Indices for wongers
- Thread starter moo321
- Start date
Split them without a second thought. As mentioned, it is a defensive split, in the long run you lose less. Although I would pray for the odd deuce or trey so I could DOUBLE DOWN. If you get another 8, split em again!
That TC 8 index is pretty useless, not worth remembering. Your time would be better spent finding a game with surrender, so at high counts you can avoid the whole issue and give up 1/2 a bet.
That TC 8 index is pretty useless, not worth remembering. Your time would be better spent finding a game with surrender, so at high counts you can avoid the whole issue and give up 1/2 a bet.
Sorry for the late response. Problem is, valuable indices beyond the I-18 really don't exist in shoe games. Plays like 13 vs. 2 and 12 vs. 4 will occasionally come up even for a Wonger. So what you are really doing is a subtractive process- you don't need to know 13 vs. 3 or 12 vs. 5, but learning hit/stand 14 vs. 10 and double 8 vs. 4 isn't going to really earn you anything.
The exceptions are the additional surrender indices:
16 vs. 8
15 vs. 9-A
14 vs. 9-A
88 vs. 10
The exceptions are the additional surrender indices:
16 vs. 8
15 vs. 9-A
14 vs. 9-A
88 vs. 10
Probably, but I'd have a hard time doing it. My "simulator" is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that I put together myself; ENHC is a very difficult rule to implement without redesigning the whole sheet. There's probably someone with a better simulator out there who can do it easier. Or there might be results already posted on the Web.
Thanks for that.
I appreciate that there is probably little $/c (£/p) value in the neg indices, but they would appear to be a great play opportunity at the right neg counts. Nobody who knows what they're doing will hit a 14 against a dealers 5, right? Perhaps someone who knows about these things could comment, but I would have thought that playing those hands would mean a player would fail a basic skills check? Out of interest, on a BSC, is it done against a deck count or are the surveillance staff just looking for the application of BS??
Newb99
PS - this all contributes to my "education" ! ! ! !
I appreciate that there is probably little $/c (£/p) value in the neg indices, but they would appear to be a great play opportunity at the right neg counts. Nobody who knows what they're doing will hit a 14 against a dealers 5, right? Perhaps someone who knows about these things could comment, but I would have thought that playing those hands would mean a player would fail a basic skills check? Out of interest, on a BSC, is it done against a deck count or are the surveillance staff just looking for the application of BS??
Newb99
PS - this all contributes to my "education" ! ! ! !
sagefr0g said:
Just curious -- why the +3.5 for insurance? usually i think of it as 3 . 
If you take six decks of cards, play out three of them and find that there are exactly 52 Tens in the remaining three decks, Insurance will now be a dead even bet. But the question is -- what will that running count most likely be???
It will vary some with the number of "zero" valued cards contained in the pack, but I don't suppose there'd be any reason to assume their population is abnormal. You simply know that you have more high cards and fewer low cards among the 156 that remain. Assuming then, that the "zero" cards number 12 each, there would be 52 Tens, 13 Aces and 11 each of the 2's through 6's (using Hi/Lo as a test case). That leaves a running count of +10 -- divided by three remaining decks -- or a +3.33 true count.
Since there's no advantage in taking Insurance at a break even bet (except probably Even Money), I generally begin insuring at around +3.5 true, which would yield about a half percent edge.
Now with systems that neutralize the Ace in the main count, Insurance becomes a play at a lower true count, since more or all of the surplus high cards consist of Tens. Using the same calculating method with Hi Opt I for example, Insurance becomes break even at +2.66 true.
To add to my frustration on this topic, I've read in various places over the years (most profoundly in Wong's Professional Blackjack), that the correct true count for Insurance depends upon the number of decks used in the game. Wong states that the Insurance true count for single deck is +1.4 with Hi/Lo, and +1.7 with Halves -- and for six decks it's +3.0 with Hi/Lo and +3.3 with Halves. With Hi/Lo, to get one third of the remaining cards to be Tens and have only a +1.4 true count, you'd need to have fewer 7's, 8's and 9's in the pack than 2's thru 6's -- which are already in short supply. That confounds me.
I'll try to post this question elsewhere and see if we can get Don Schlesinger to chime in.
16 vs A
The following link states that one should stand on 16 vs A at a TC of 3 on a 6 deck S17 game but I haven't able to confirm this anywhere else. How accurate is this?
:http://www.gamemasteronline.com/GameMasters/GameMasterClassics14.shtml (Archive copy)
The following link states that one should stand on 16 vs A at a TC of 3 on a 6 deck S17 game but I haven't able to confirm this anywhere else. How accurate is this?
:http://www.gamemasteronline.com/GameMasters/GameMasterClassics14.shtml (Archive copy)
