Is this a good game?
- Thread starter Red514LX
- Start date
A bad game (but not VERY bad).
It would be MUCH better if the penetration were deeper (2+ decks cut off is too much).
S17 and LSR are good, rules.
6D or 8D doesn't matter, what matters is the penetration. If it was 6D with the same penetration, it would also be of little value. If you could get 6D with 4.5 decks dealt, it would be a good game. If you could get 6D with 5 dealt, it would be a great game.
--Mayor
It would be MUCH better if the penetration were deeper (2+ decks cut off is too much).
S17 and LSR are good, rules.
6D or 8D doesn't matter, what matters is the penetration. If it was 6D with the same penetration, it would also be of little value. If you could get 6D with 4.5 decks dealt, it would be a good game. If you could get 6D with 5 dealt, it would be a great game.
--Mayor
The problem with a two deck cut off is that the dealers get assinine and cut off 2.5 or even three because they get board dealing six decks or more in the two deck game. Like a shuffle will improve their dispositions.
The Mayor is right about the surrender and the s17. The only thing I wonder about when it is s17 if the dealer checks and there in no ten underneath when would you surrender or not surrender 16 against an ace? What indices? I mean thin because with a possible soft hand under that Ace. What negative TC would tell you to hit instead of surrender.??? Mayor if you could comment on this please. LTC
The Mayor is right about the surrender and the s17. The only thing I wonder about when it is s17 if the dealer checks and there in no ten underneath when would you surrender or not surrender 16 against an ace? What indices? I mean thin because with a possible soft hand under that Ace. What negative TC would tell you to hit instead of surrender.??? Mayor if you could comment on this please. LTC
Re: Is this a good game? NOT BAD...
A local casino offers an 8D shoe-game. They usually reshuffle w/ a little more than 2D remaining. The rules are: 21 pays 3:2, DA2, DAS, S17, LSR. Is this a favorable game? Would this game be more or less favorable if it was a 6D shoe-game?
---------------------
...It would be slightly more favorable w/6D (still 75% pene)and RSA.
Two important issues - one is that your spread is sufficient, two is that you avoid neg-counts and go to another fresh shoe if the TC drops below -3. zg
A local casino offers an 8D shoe-game. They usually reshuffle w/ a little more than 2D remaining. The rules are: 21 pays 3:2, DA2, DAS, S17, LSR. Is this a favorable game? Would this game be more or less favorable if it was a 6D shoe-game?
---------------------
...It would be slightly more favorable w/6D (still 75% pene)and RSA.
Two important issues - one is that your spread is sufficient, two is that you avoid neg-counts and go to another fresh shoe if the TC drops below -3. zg
Penetration on 6D vs. 8D
Neophyte here, so please forgive the remedial question.
Wouldn't 2D penetration on an 8D shoe be equivalent to 1.5D penetration on a 6D shoe? I realize the remaining decks is important as the minimum denominator in the true count, but isn't the percentage of cards unplayed the essential variable -- meaning rough equivalency between 2D/8D and 1.5D/6D penetration (or 75 percent), setting aside the non-counting issue of each deck increasing the house advantage?
Neophyte here, so please forgive the remedial question.
Wouldn't 2D penetration on an 8D shoe be equivalent to 1.5D penetration on a 6D shoe? I realize the remaining decks is important as the minimum denominator in the true count, but isn't the percentage of cards unplayed the essential variable -- meaning rough equivalency between 2D/8D and 1.5D/6D penetration (or 75 percent), setting aside the non-counting issue of each deck increasing the house advantage?
More decks == greater penetration
In my opinion, the more decks in the game, the better the penetration required to have the games be "equivalent". I think of the following as the break-off points for marginal games.
In single deck, R06 (this is typically under 60%).
In double deck, 60-65%.
In six deck, 75% (4.5 out of 6).
In eight decks, 80% or better.
The function is not linear. 75% at 6 deck is marginal. 75% at single deck and you can retire.
--Mayor
In my opinion, the more decks in the game, the better the penetration required to have the games be "equivalent". I think of the following as the break-off points for marginal games.
In single deck, R06 (this is typically under 60%).
In double deck, 60-65%.
In six deck, 75% (4.5 out of 6).
In eight decks, 80% or better.
The function is not linear. 75% at 6 deck is marginal. 75% at single deck and you can retire.
--Mayor
6 & 8 deck SCORE comparo...
Here are some 6 & 8 deck SCORE numbers from a post by Bootlegger:
Here is some data from BJRM, assuming $10,000 bank and $25 units with OPTIMAL BETS:
GAME SCORE PLAY ALL SCORE WONG
4/6 S17DAS $11.97 $27.14
6/8 S17DAS $11.42 $27.35
4/6 S17DASLS $20.88 $40.83
6/8 S17DASLS $19.80 $40.45
Again, Hi-LO Ill 18 and fab 4, $10,000 bank, Optimal bets and units:
GAME SCORE PLAY ALL SCORE WONG
5/6 S17DAS $33.64 $63.84
7/8 S17DAS $26.42 $55.20
5/6 S17DASLS $52.27 $90.44
7/8 S17DASLS $42.64 $78.50
Here the 6 deck game is CLEARLY superior!
------------------------------------------
Note that with shallow pen there is little difference, but as pen increases, the 6 decker takes off.
ANS
p.s.: I have to disagree with zg's -3 wong out recommendation. This game requires a much more aggressive approach. Without getting into detail, a shoe with that shallow penetration tends to stay fairly neutral more often than usual, resulting in less times spent at higher/lower counts. I don't have an exact number on hand, but I would venture to guess that this shoe would reach -3 as infrequently as 5%-6% of the time (maybe 7%-8%), which would allow far too many hands to be played at -2, -1, and 0, causing high variance and a stunted ev.
Here are some 6 & 8 deck SCORE numbers from a post by Bootlegger:
Here is some data from BJRM, assuming $10,000 bank and $25 units with OPTIMAL BETS:
GAME SCORE PLAY ALL SCORE WONG
4/6 S17DAS $11.97 $27.14
6/8 S17DAS $11.42 $27.35
4/6 S17DASLS $20.88 $40.83
6/8 S17DASLS $19.80 $40.45
Again, Hi-LO Ill 18 and fab 4, $10,000 bank, Optimal bets and units:
GAME SCORE PLAY ALL SCORE WONG
5/6 S17DAS $33.64 $63.84
7/8 S17DAS $26.42 $55.20
5/6 S17DASLS $52.27 $90.44
7/8 S17DASLS $42.64 $78.50
Here the 6 deck game is CLEARLY superior!
------------------------------------------
Note that with shallow pen there is little difference, but as pen increases, the 6 decker takes off.
ANS
p.s.: I have to disagree with zg's -3 wong out recommendation. This game requires a much more aggressive approach. Without getting into detail, a shoe with that shallow penetration tends to stay fairly neutral more often than usual, resulting in less times spent at higher/lower counts. I don't have an exact number on hand, but I would venture to guess that this shoe would reach -3 as infrequently as 5%-6% of the time (maybe 7%-8%), which would allow far too many hands to be played at -2, -1, and 0, causing high variance and a stunted ev.
I must agree...
...with the preceeding analysis by Boot/Adam - Of course, anyone familiar with my posts knows that I universally advise counters to avoid neg-shoes and to wong.
In the instant case the querant's playing style was indetirminant. I would tend to maintain, however, that a 75% 'semi-playall' 8D w/1-40 spread, betting 1u every other hand/negEv and exit at -3TC approach (such as I might play aboard a cruise ship or other limited table enviroment) might offer an acceptable advantage (in fact your playall stats virtually confirm it).
Prefferably, wonging in w/ 1-6+ spread is superior to the above, and wonging out TC is a function of remaining #decks. zg
...with the preceeding analysis by Boot/Adam - Of course, anyone familiar with my posts knows that I universally advise counters to avoid neg-shoes and to wong.
In the instant case the querant's playing style was indetirminant. I would tend to maintain, however, that a 75% 'semi-playall' 8D w/1-40 spread, betting 1u every other hand/negEv and exit at -3TC approach (such as I might play aboard a cruise ship or other limited table enviroment) might offer an acceptable advantage (in fact your playall stats virtually confirm it).
Prefferably, wonging in w/ 1-6+ spread is superior to the above, and wonging out TC is a function of remaining #decks. zg