Pitch Pen

[assume_R]

When playing multiple hands in a pitch game, very near the cut card, can it be worth it to take a hit on your first hand in order to see another card for your second hand? Essentially increasing the pen by 1 card? I imagine some situations it would be worth it.

If you need a RC of -2, let's say, to hit 12v4, but the RC is only -1, it might be worth it to hit so that you can see another card for your second hand.

 

[NightStalker]

not worth

extra round- may be depending upon your bet ratio..
1 extra card, no way..
You are only playing better playing decision on second hand by playing bad decision on first hand.. total loss..

 

[SleightOfHand]

I would think not. As NS said above, you are (assumingly) losing EV on you first hand hoping for an improvement in EV for the second hand; the EV may even get worse. TC theorem states that the TC will tend to stay the same, which means the chances your second hand will improve is the same as ur chances that the hand will worsen.

There is potential for benefit if you know that taking an additional hit will cause the cut card to come out I'm negative counts, saving you a round of play from a negative TC

 

[assume_R]

Hmm really? I'm not talking about hitting a 15v6, or even 12v4 on a count of +2, but on really close calls such as 12v4 with +/- 1 from the index. Like plays where even the index number can be debated.

If we are willing to use rounded indices, why not hit on very close h/s calls to see an additional card? Whether or not it improves or degrades the EV, we are still more "accurate" in our next decision. And in pitch games, where a single card can increase the pen by either 1 or 2 percent.

 

[SleightOfHand]

I was thinking about this question more and I still don't see much benefit. So, let's say we have 2 hands of 12v4 at the precise pivot point, making no difference between hit or stand in terms of EV. Therefore, we hit our first hand in order to "improve" our playing decision for the next hand.

So now what happens? If the card was a - tag, our EV has decreased by 2% (that number is more or less made up). If the card was a + tag, it increases our EV by 2%. If neutral, the EV doesn't change. The changes in EV assume we made the correct decision based on the TC.

Assuming an even distribution of +/- tags, our average outcome is no change in EV compared to if we stood on both hands, regardless of the accuracy of our playing decision. Hopefully my analysis isn't flawed, but from what I figure, the only difference between hitting or standing on the first hand is the number of cards used in the round, which, as stated can be of value if we wanted to manipulate it.

 

[assume_R]

sleight,

I agree that on average it won't change our EV on the second hand, but I was considering the "floating advantage", where in pitch games the count can be very volatile, and TC's near the very end of the deck(s) can be not quite the same as TC's in the first few rounds.

hmmmm

 

[SleightOfHand]

sleight,

I agree that on average it won't change our EV on the second hand, but I was considering the "floating advantage", where in pitch games the count can be very volatile, and TC's near the very end of the deck(s) can be not quite the same as TC's in the first few rounds.

hmmmm

From what I am aware, floating advantage refers to the fact that TCs at deeper levels of the shoe have higher advantages than TCs off the top of a fresh shoe. This is because playing a deck at TC0 with 2 decks remaining in a 6 deck shoe is similar/the same as playing a 2 deck shoe off the top, which has a lower HE than a 6 deck shoe off the top. As far as how it affects playing decisions, idk and i wouldn't think so.

Like stated before, the main advantage I see from making the H/S decision on close decision hands is being able to manipulate how many rounds played until the shuffle.

Another advantage is where if you have 1 round remaining, and taking another card will not affect that, then you will be adding variance to the TC, which is good.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I was thinking about this question more and I still don't see much benefit. So, let's say we have 2 hands of 12v4 at the precise pivot point, making no difference between hit or stand in terms of EV. Therefore, we hit our first hand in order to "improve" our playing decision for the next hand.

So now what happens? If the card was a - tag, our EV has decreased by 2% (that number is more or less made up). If the card was a + tag, it increases our EV by 2%. If neutral, the EV doesn't change. The changes in EV assume we made the correct decision based on the TC.

Assuming an even distribution of +/- tags, our average outcome is no change in EV compared to if we stood on both hands, regardless of the accuracy of our playing decision. Hopefully my analysis isn't flawed, but from what I figure, the only difference between hitting or standing on the first hand is the number of cards used in the round, which, as stated can be of value if we wanted to manipulate it.

Let's illustrate it with an extreme. Suppose there were only three cards left, the count is neutral. One of those 3 cards is the dealer's hole card. If you hit the first hand and bust it, you know it is safe to hit the next hand, and you will surely need a card on the next hand. If you get one of the non-10's on the first hand, it becomes the right call to stand on the second hand.

So what that comes down to is a 33% risk of busting the first hand, but the information gives you a 0% risk of busting the second. This is an extreme and improbable situation, but a real-world situation is like this, just scaled down. The actual cash value of doing it depends on the ratio of the bets on the two hands. When you have multiple hands in a game it pays to keep the bets up on all of them to reduce variance, but in a situation where for some reason you have a sacrificial hand in the game there may be reasons to take outrageous hits to provide information for the other hand(s).

 

[SleightOfHand]

Let's illustrate it with an extreme. Suppose there were only three cards left, the count is neutral. One of those 3 cards is the dealer's hole card. If you hit the first hand and bust it, you know it is safe to hit the next hand, and you will surely need a card on the next hand. If you get one of the non-10's on the first hand, it becomes the right call to stand on the second hand.

So what that comes down to is a 33% risk of busting the first hand, but the information gives you a 0% risk of busting the second. This is an extreme and improbable situation, but a real-world situation is like this, just scaled down. The actual cash value of doing it depends on the ratio of the bets on the two hands. When you have multiple hands in a game it pays to keep the bets up on all of them to reduce variance, but in a situation where for some reason you have a sacrificial hand in the game there may be reasons to take outrageous hits to provide information for the other hand(s).

So what is the gain from hitting and acquiring this knowledge compared to standing? Hitting and busting will give you a bust free hit on your next hand. The dealer will also have to hit, which will have a chance to stay pat or a chance to bust (in this example, only an 8 or 9 being the bust cards). The pat hands will still have a decent chance of beating your 12 + neutral/positive tag. Standing on both will give the dealer more chances to bust.

I'm only rambling about this since I dont see a lot of benefit of using only bust % as an indicator for the value of a play, which is why I was considering EV as my basis for comparison. I think the problem is that although TCs affect the plays, there are only 2 or 3 plays that will be in consideration. And for this topic, only 2 plays will be compared. A very small amount of the time, taking the additional hit will change your actual play, where the benefit I still find questionable.